Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Harper: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I also want to ask about a specific electricity generation plant, the Severn barrage. By my reading of article 5.2 of the EU renewables directive, the Government are not going to hit their renewables target without constructing the barrage. That would make a nonsense of the studies that are under way and the great concern that there is locally. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government can hit their EU renewables target without having to build the Severn barrage?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I should like to join the mutual admiration society and pay tribute to the work that he has done on climate change and energy over a number of years. He is right to say that, as we think about the current downturn, some people will say to us, "It's time to abandon your climate change objectives." However, the green jobs agenda and moving to a low-carbon economy gives us an opportunity to prepare for the upturn and to find new ways of employing people. He is also right to say that the skills agenda is an important part of that, and I will have discussions with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills on the matter.

Peter Luff: I was grateful to the Secretary of State for the opportunity to discuss with him my Committee's report on fuel prices that was published in July, which proved that increased prices were the fault not of the companies but of the market. We are addressing market failure. Since we published that report, there has been a significant deterioration in market conditions. BizzEnergy, an electricity supplier in my constituency, has gone bust, with 160 jobs lost. The Government are allowing British Energy to be bought by EDF. Transparency and liquidity are being reduced in the electricity market. There will be one consequence— higher prices for consumers. Does he agree?

Russell Brown: I applaud the work that my hon. and learned Friend is doing on social tariffs, but in rural constituencies such as mine, social tariffs do not matter to many people, as their only form of heating is oil, LPG or coal—the latter has also risen significantly in price. Will he consider ways to reduce bills for people who rely on those fuels?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows that secondary legislation can come forward only if it is dependent on the original primary legislation, and we on the Government Benches are very keen to ensure that there is a process of post-legislative scrutiny. If the scrutiny were to suggest that, in a particular area, further, secondary legislation should not come forward from an individual Act, we would want to review the matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like to make specific recommendations, however, my room is room 102, around the corner, and he should feel very free to come round and talk to me sometime.

Parliamentary Answers

Patrick Cormack: If the Deputy Leader of the House truly means what he says about timetabling, will he and the Leader of the House take a little time during the Prorogation to consider establishing a proper business Committee composed of senior Back Benchers who would determine the allocation of the House's time?

Chris Bryant: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well, which is why he is sitting down with a great big smile all over his face. If there were to be a business Committee, I am sure that he, as one of the most senior Members of the House, would sit on it. I know that other Conservative Members also think that there should be one. However, to suggest that there should be such a Committee shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the House operates. The only reason why we are the Government is that we have a majority in the House. That arrangement is very different from that in the United States of America, where the Executive are separate from the legislature.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
	Following on from this morning's Energy and Climate Change questions, I remind the Leader of the House that the Energy Secretary gave a commitment a month ago that he would require action from the energy companies on fuel prices, or would take action himself. One month on, no action has been taken. This morning, the Energy Secretary committed to give a report to the House on his meeting with the energy companies, which takes place on Monday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that report will be given via an oral statement to the House to give Members an opportunity to question the Energy Secretary, and when will that statement be made?
	The issue of the programme motion on yesterday's business has just been raised again in questions to the Leader of the House. I know that business questions are about future business, not past business, but I ask the Leader of the House whether she really learned anything from yesterday's debate. Does she not realise the strength of feeling in this House when the Government unnecessarily curtail House business in this way? Frankly, what happened yesterday was a gross discourtesy to the House and an example of gross mismanagement of business. Will she give a commitment that in future she will put the interests of the House ahead of those of the Government and give sufficient time for Back Benchers to be able to express their views?
	This week, the World Economic Forum confirmed that the UK has, for the second successive year, fallen in world gender equality rankings. Taking into account issues such as the gender pay gap, economic participation and educational achievement, the WEF now ranks the UK below nations such as Latvia and the Philippines. The report highlights the importance of making use of the full potential of women in the workplace. Will the right hon. and learned Lady, in her role as Minister for Women and Equality, therefore make a statement to the House to confirm whether the Government will support our Equal Pay and Flexible Working Bill?
	The right hon. and learned Lady has made much of the fact that the Government will bring forward an equality Bill in the next Session. As she is the Minister for Women and Equality, the expectation was that she would lead the Bill through the House of Commons, but we now learn that that will be done by the Solicitor-General—indeed, her headed notepaper describes her as "Solicitor-General and Equality Bill Lead". I understand from the Library that in the past two decades only four Bills have been taken through the House by a Law Officer. Why has the right hon. and learned Lady been sidelined in this way?
	We very much welcome the independent investigation announced by the Government yesterday into the tragic case of Baby P in Haringey. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the findings of that inquiry will be made public, and will the Children Secretary come to the House to make a statement on those findings in the new Session?
	On a more general point, can we at some stage have a general debate on the social work profession? Most social workers do a vital job in exceptionally difficult circumstances, but the chief executive of the NSPCC said yesterday that they did not have enough training and support and were heavily engaged in paperwork and bureaucracy. I think that a debate on social work would be appropriate and timely.
	Finally, last year, in his Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister spoke of
	"an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London".
	Within months, there was the first run on a UK bank for a century. In April this year, he said to the House:
	"even in difficult global times, we are continuing to create jobs and continuing to bring unemployment down."—[ Official Report, 23 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1309.]
	Figures released yesterday show that unemployment has gone up to 1.8 million—its highest level for 13 years—so it is now higher than when Labour came to office. People are losing their jobs, businesses are going under and homes are being repossessed. I ask the Leader of the House yet again: when can we have a general debate in Government time on the state of the economy?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about the Energy Secretary's meeting with the energy companies, and just a few minutes before these questions, the Energy Secretary has being held to account by the House. If he has any future specific announcements to make, he will no doubt bring them to the House.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the programme motion yesterday, and whether I had learned any lessons. The reality is that we spent two hours discussing the timing—two hours of concern about the length of time given for debate. An amendment could have been tabled to our programme motion, which we laid before the House seven days before the matter was debated. If a proposal for an extra hour's debate on regional Committees had been introduced by the Opposition, or from those on our Back Benches, it stands to reason that we would have accepted it. They could have done that, instead of our spending two hours discussing timing. I have learned that the Opposition perhaps need to be encouraged to table amendments, rather than fulminate for two hours when they have failed to do so. That is what I have learned, and I would ask what the right hon. Lady has learned. We are all clearly in a learning environment.
	The right hon. Lady asked about world gender equality, and mentioned the equality Bill. I am grateful that she will actively support that Bill when it is introduced after it is announced in the Queen's Speech. She also said something rather curious about my having allegedly been "sidelined" on equality, which shows a misunderstanding of the movement for women's equality. I do not own that movement, so it is not a question of my being sidelined. We should have more women Ministers, more women Members of Parliament, and more action taken by women in voluntary organisations throughout the country; that is not a question of being sidelined, but of the agenda being mainstreamed. I have overall responsibility for the equality Bill, and the Solicitor-General will lead the Bill through the House, just as the Attorney-General took the lead in the House of Lords on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The Law Officers are able not only to give advice to the Government but to lead Bills through the House, and the Solicitor-General will do an excellent job. She will have my full support.
	What is so terribly tragic about the case of Baby P, the baby in Haringey killed by his parents, is not only that a baby should have been killed in such horrible circumstances, but that there appear to have been up to 60 missed opportunities to save that baby's life. There were 60 occasions when the family and the baby were seen by social workers, police and health professionals, which is why everyone finds this case so particularly tragic. We all want to ensure that lessons are learned. Children, Schools and Families questions will take place on Monday.
	The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the economy, and particularly jobs. For any individual, in whatever circumstance, to lose their job is a matter of great concern. Many people worry not only when they will find their next job, but if they will lose their house in the meantime. That is why we are introducing extra help with mortgages and why we are putting extra investment into Jobcentre Plus, and into private and voluntary sector organisations that can help people to find their next job. In the summer, we had a record high number of 30 million jobs in the economy. In the last quarter, according to the available figures, there were still something like 600,000 vacancies in the economy. It is important that we try, by stabilising the economy, recapitalising the banks, taking international action, introducing public sector projects and helping small businesses, to ensure that people do not lose their jobs. However, if people do lose their jobs, we must ensure that every bit of help possible is available to them.
	I said that we would have the pre-Budget report on Monday week. Shortly thereafter, on 3 December, there will be five days of debate on the Queen's Speech. The No. 1 priority—our top concern, as I am sure it is right hon. Lady's—is the effect of the economic crisis on all aspects of life for businesses and families. We want to ensure that the House has ample opportunity to hold Ministers to account and have general debates on the economy.
	After the matter was raised in last week's business questions, I looked back from the beginning of October till now, and found that there have been no fewer than 12 occasions on which the House has had an opportunity, whether through debates or statements, to raise economic issues. If Members have an opportunity to hold a Treasury Minister to account and make speeches, does it matter whether it is technically in Government time or in the debate after the Queen's Speech, which happens in Government time but for which the Opposition choose the subjects? It is important for the House to debate the economy, and for the public to see that we are doing so and holding Treasury Ministers to account. I will ensure that there is a continuous stream of statements and debates on the economy and that the House has plenty of opportunity to discuss it.

Harriet Harman: I am not aware of the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, the purpose of naming those who have been made subject to orders or found guilty of offences is to ensure that those who might be at risk know the situation; to deter people by showing them that they will named publicly; and to enable the public both to know that those who reoffend are under an order and to report them. I do not think that anything in the Human Rights Act 1998 prevents a proper and proportionate response to curtailing future criminal activities, but I shall look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and raise it with an appropriate Minister.

Harriet Harman: I know that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, have raised this matter on behalf of their constituents with the relevant Ministers and the Prime Minister. If there is to be a response from Government, there will doubtless be a statement.

Stewart Hosie: As we move into this recession, we have seen unemployment rise massively in the past three months, and forecasts for the future are pretty gloomy. Given that it is our job to try to protect and preserve jobs, it does not appear to make a great deal of sense for the Government to press ahead with their support of the Lloyds TSB-HBOS merger which, it is reported today, could lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs. Edinburgh and Lothian Members, including the Chancellor, are conscious of that, and MPs in the Halifax area are also aware of the concerns in their constituencies. May we have a debate, in Government time, so that the Government can justify their continued support for the shotgun merger of Lloyds TSB and HBOS, and the potential loss of jobs, and to hear the arguments from both sides of the House? Independent recapitalisation of both banks would provide as much stability as the merger, and it would preserve and protect lots of jobs.

Harriet Harman: We have increased the regulation of bailiffs. This is a case in which what is sometimes derided as red tape is important to protect people who are very vulnerable. It is not only important to have the right regulation in place, but to ensure that it is properly enforced. I will ask the Minister concerned to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain not only the current state of the regulations, but how they are being effectively policed.

Harriet Harman: I would certainly like to pay tribute to and welcome the new Member for Glenrothes, who was introduced to the House yesterday. When I was up in Glenrothes, I felt very strongly that it is not only elderly people themselves who are worried about increases in charges, as whole families then become concerned about their older relatives. We all need to recognise that care and support of older people in their own homes—it is called adult social care, but it is really the common-sense issue of looking after elderly people—should move much higher up all our political agendas.

Edward Garnier: May I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on work in prisons. She will know that one of the best ways in which to reduce reoffending when people leave prison is to find them a job. One of the saddest things to have happened over the past few weeks is the closing down of the barbed project at HMP Coldingley. That project provided real and well paid work for a number of prisoners, but it has been closed down as a consequence of the Government's introduction of the core day. That is utterly regrettable; may we have a debate about it?

Harriet Harman: I recognise the hon. and learned Member's long-standing interest in these issues and the sophistication of his approach, which he has demonstrated again today. It is important to do whatever we can when people are in prison to ensure that they do not promptly reoffend when they come out of prison, so I will raise the hon. and learned Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.

Harriet Harman: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change recognises, as does my hon. Friend, that it is not just the work of national Governments that matters, as it is also important to prompt work internationally and organisations in civil society need to work in partnership on climate change issues. I will raise my hon. Friend's point with my right hon. Friend.

Paul Goodman: Returning to the theme of being in a learning environment, several of my constituents are having difficulty getting into one because they cannot get the education maintenance allowance to which they are entitled as a result of computer problems. I took their cases up with the Learning and Skills Council on 7 November and I recently received a reply saying simply that all providers will be kept up to date. We need to do a bit better than that, so may we have a specific date and will the Education Secretary come to the Dispatch Box to tell us when it will be?

Andrew Murrison: The Leader of the House will be as concerned as I am to learn that troops who are being deployed with ever-increasing amounts of heavy equipment are exceeding troop fight weight limits, which means that their personal kit must be left behind to be sent on at some later date. I have also learned, from a memo dated 10 October 2008 from General Richards, that goodwill parcels sent by generous members of the public may not be dispatched, which is not good in the run-up to Christmas. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate in Government time on the common factor, namely the inadequacy of the United Kingdom airbridge?

Andrew Pelling: Treasury Ministers have been extraordinarily generous with their time in allowing themselves to be held to account in the House, given that they are trying to manage one of the most significant financial crises of the last 100 years. When might I have an opportunity to raise the important issue of pensioners who have suffered a considerable reduction in their incomes? HSBC is currently targeting pensioners with a bonus-option account paying just 1.5 per cent. in interest.
	Will the Leader of the House also tell me when we can raise another important issue? The Paulson plan in the United States seems to be failing. It has now begun bailing out credit card and student loan debt, which is a sign that the financial crisis is becoming a great deal worse.

James Purnell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the future of the Post Office card account.
	The Government created the Post Office card account in 2003. We announced that there would be a successor in 2006. On the basis of the legal advice that we received at the time, we put the contract out to tender. During that process, I have been unable to comment publicly or privately on the matter. I know that that has been frustrating for hon. Members, and I thank them for their patience and understanding.  [Laughter.]
	I also know that all hon. Members would agree that the Post Office is at the heart of their communities. It reaches the places and people that no one else reaches. That is why the Government have invested £2 billion in the Post Office since 1997; why we have, for the first time, set out access criteria to preserve its reach; and why we will invest another £1.7 billion between now and 2011.
	There is no doubt that the Post Office card account is central to maintaining a viable post office network. It not only generates a key part of the Post Office's income, but brings with it a footfall that is vital to individual sub-postmasters. Post Office card account customers have shown how much they value the service through the postcard campaign that has resulted in large postbags for hon. Members over the last few months.
	It is also clear that maintaining a viable Post Office network is even more critical now than it was two years ago. The financial turbulence that began in America and the string of consequences that followed it have understandably made many people, particularly the most vulnerable in our society, more concerned about financial transactions. The Post Office, with its trusted brand, is seen as safe, secure and reliable as a provider of financial services.
	So I believe that now cannot be the time for the Government to do anything that would put that network at risk, particularly as post offices are often the only providers of banking services in both rural and deprived urban areas. The Post Office also has a proven record of being able to move billions of pounds in cash safely around the country and prides itself on meeting the needs of vulnerable customers. Sub-postmasters know their customers and provide a social service as well as a banking service. Delivering this vital social service for groups in our communities who need it most is not only an objective of the Post Office. It is an objective that the Government share passionately as well. To safeguard that service, we must help and support a viable Post Office network.
	For that reason, I can announce today that the Government have now decided to cancel the current unfinished procurement exercise and to award a new contract for the continuation of the Post Office card account directly to Post Office Ltd, within the terms of the relevant EC regulations. The contract will run initially from April 2010 to March 2015 with the possibility of an extension beyond that.
	I recognise, of course, that this decision will disappoint those other bidders who had reached the final stage of the competition. I want to emphasise to the House, as I have done to them personally, that my decision does not reflect in any way on their ability to have provided the services in question. Nor is it a step we have taken lightly. We recognise the importance of competition in the awarding of public contracts, but we have concluded that, in these circumstances, protecting vulnerable groups by preserving a viable Post Office network justifies the award of a contract outside the competitive process. These are exceptional times and we believe that this is a proper and proportionate response. The Post Office considers that this decision, along with the extra money invested by this Government, will ensure a commercially viable future for the post offices that will be in place after the modernisation and network change programme is complete.
	I said that I would make a decision as soon as I could. I said that I would not rush the decision. I said that what was important was that we made the right decision. I believe this is the right decision. It is good news for our constituents, good news for Post Office Ltd and good news for sub-postmasters. I trust that it will be welcomed by hon. Members, and I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: May I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement?
	Although this is a work and pensions contract, it of course has massive implications for the Post Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is in the midlands today, so I am pleased to take his place at the Dispatch Box.
	Today's statement is disarray dressed up as decision. The announcement is long overdue. We expected it in July, we were promised it for October but we have it only now. It is clear that the Govt were looking for every possible way of giving the contract to someone other than the Post Office, but in the end, they simply did not dare. Today marks a great success for those who have campaigned for the Post Office and a humiliating climbdown for the Government who have done everything they possibly could to find a way of awarding it to somebody else.
	The Government insisted on having a tender, and today, after months of an expensive process, they have simply binned that tender altogether. Why did the Government not do from the start what the Irish did and award it without a tender? What has changed since the beginning of the process? How much did the aborted process cost? Will the Secretary of State be compensating those other bidders who were not successful?
	Is it not the case that the tender terms were a complete mess and opened up the award of the contract to great confusion? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the legal status of the decision is 100 per cent. watertight? Can he tell the House that there is no risk of or scope for any legal challenge from anybody who was not awarded the contract? What is his estimate of the revenue that Post Office branches will enjoy from this new contract compared with the one that currently exists? Is it not the case that the POCA is absolutely essential to some of the most vulnerable, and as unemployment rises—in large part thanks to the Government's incompetence—even through the 3 million mark, that POCA will become even more significant during the economic downturn?
	We have proposed expanding POCA so that it can be used by account holders to pay their utility bills by a form of direct debit, not only ensuring lower tariffs for the most vulnerable customers but giving a £20 million boost to Post Office revenues. Will the Secretary of State pledge to look again at this sensible proposal and undertake to adopt it?
	Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the proposed new contract fully complies with all the requirements and stipulations laid down by the EU and that the EU has already signified that this is the case?  [ Interruption. ]

James Purnell: I think that that was the sound of "Focus" leaflets being pulped in their thousands. This is the right decision, and I am glad that, at the very end of her questions, the hon. Lady acknowledged that. We all know that the Liberal Democrats will want to take credit for this. She says it is their way of thinking, but the truth is that they were so confident of their way of thinking that they tabled a motion that was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). It was not their way of thinking at all, but that of Labour Members. We were glad to see the Liberal Democrats voting in support of his motion this week, but as we know, it had been overtaken by the changes that we had made in response to the lobbying and campaigning on behalf of their constituents carried out by my Labour colleagues.
	The hon. Lady asked me what has changed. What has changed is that there has been a significant reduction in confidence about financial transactions, and people have turned to the Post Office because of its trusted brand. The Post Office provides a service that is not only a banking service, but a social service, and that becomes even more important when people are worried about financial circumstances. In the light of that, we commissioned legal advice, which has said that this is the right way for us to proceed. The truth is that for all the heat and bluster, everyone in this Chamber agrees that this is the right way forward.
	The hon. Lady asked whether we would release the information about the tender, but as the tender has not been completed, it would be inappropriate to do so. As she knows, the advert in the  Official Journal of the European Union has been placed in the Library, and she is welcome to look at that. I am sure that she will enjoy reading it. As I said to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, this is value for money, and it is the right decision for our customers, for taxpayers and for post offices. It gives them certainty to plan up until 2015 and allows Labour Members to concentrate on building a viable post office network.

John McFall: In light of the equivocation from Opposition Members, I wish to welcome this proposal clearly and unambiguously on behalf of the Treasury Committee. Two years ago we called for the successor to the POCA to be run by the Post Office, so this is excellent news for rural and low-income communities. I have spoken to Post Office executives, and they believe that these funding proposals should be the last and that, by 2015, the service should be a universal, stand-alone bank. I am looking for a commitment from the Government to that, as well as a recommendation for a cross-departmental approach to financial inclusion, so that the Post Office can play its part in that.

James Purnell: Yes, the hon. Gentleman can do that. That decision would be primarily for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, but if his party has any suggestions we would be happy to look at them.

Kerry McCarthy: I too welcome this announcement very much, as will the hundreds of my constituents who have written to me about it. I chair the all-party group on credit unions, and I have just written to Lord Mandelson to see whether we can explore how credits unions can use the Post Office network to make their services more available, especially to people in remote areas. Will he undertake to talk to Lord Mandelson to see how we can move those issues forward?

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make opening an account as easy as possible. It is already easier than opening a bank account, but the new contract will make it even easier. Both the Post Office and the Government are committed to that, and will work together on it over the next few weeks and months.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of combating obesity.
	It was almost a year ago today that the foresight programme report served notice of the grave threat posed to health by obesity. That group of eminent scientists claimed that modern society had created an obesogenic environment, which, without radical action, would result in nine in 10 adults and two thirds of all children being overweight or obese by 2050. The prognosis is truly frightening. Within a generation, three in five cases of type 2 diabetes and a fifth of all heart disease cases will be caused by obesity, and for the first time in centuries we face the terrible spectre of some children living shorter lives than their parents unless we reverse current trends.
	Yet the prescription, on paper at least, is simple: we all need to eat a little less and exercise a little more; we will then, hopefully, live a little longer. In practice, though, the challenge is rather more difficult. People live hectic lives. Time is at a premium, and so often, exercise or healthy food can be edged out by family commitments, work, a lack of good leisure facilities or a lack of shops that sell fresh food in the area. Fundamentally, making the big lifestyle changes is a question of access, opportunity and will. Those are the issues that we must address emphatically if we want to turn the tide on obesity. The Government have already taken important steps: for example, we have allocated £65 million to NHS primary care trusts to help them to identify, monitor and support obese patients. We have updated the child health promotion programme and expanded the new family nurse partnership programme. In partnership with the children's plan introduced by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, that will help to support the health and well-being of children and young people.
	Working with Ofcom, we have placed new restrictions on the broadcast advertising of unhealthy foods to children, and are continuing to work with industry on the healthy food code to reduce salt and fat content in manufactured foods. But—and it is a big but—changing behaviour is not something that we can do from the Department of Health, Whitehall or this House. We need a lifestyle revolution driven not from above but from below, and embracing all aspects of a person's life. That means that everyone—schools, councils, local businesses, charities and community groups—must play a role in helping people to make space for the little things that can make a big difference.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's instruction, and I shall come on to give an example of the way in which the Government's leadership role, by providing the framework for action and creating the opportunities and infrastructures for healthy living in our communities, can address those problems. When I do so, and if he does not think that I answered his question, I shall be happy to give way again.

Alistair Burt: I take the Minister's point, but India is a developing society and it counts itself as one. If we went to parts of Africa, we would not find that the issue was handled in the same way. I take the Minister's point that obesity affects all nations that have reached a certain status, but, for us, it is a slight luxury to be dealt with.
	We have the dilemma of being an information-based society—there is no shortage of information about health, diet and everything else—that takes no notice. It is not a class issue, but the problems are concentrated among the poorest. We have another dilemma whereby the Government do not want to lecture, or to finger-wag, as the Secretary of State said when he launched "Change for Life", but they have to pick up the very substantial bill for a nation that neglects the issue of obesity. The debate is interesting because, as several contributors have said, there is a limit to what we can do about it. However, talking about the issue and raising it is what we do, and it is very important.
	I shall concentrate on four points. First, I shall return to the international situation. More than 923 million—perhaps 1 billion—people in the world are hungry. Every day 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes, and every year more than 20 million low-birth-weight babies are born in developing countries, where they risk dying in infancy or growing up with various diseases. If food was left on the side of the plate in Victorian times, the mother or father would pronounce to the child the maxim, "This is needed in some other part of the world. If you were living somewhere else, they would want it." Well, we cannot all do that, and it does not quite translate in the same way, but it should be an issue in this country, and people should be reminded that, when compared with other places, the luxury of food in this country means that perhaps the imperative that we take what we want, but eat what we take, actually matters. There is no harm in introducing that point to the debate.
	Secondly, on the Government's role in the provision of information, there is no shortage of information about what obesity means and what we might be able to do about it. Obesity is a contributory risk factor in many chronic diseases: heart disease, stroke, some cancers, type 2 diabetes and so many other things. Obesity and lack of physical activity are risk factors in several major cancers, and, in addition, obese people are more likely to suffer from a number of psychological problems, such as low self-image, lack of confidence, social stigma, reduced mobility and an overall poorer quality of life. Despite all those documented risks, the prevalence of obesity in England more than trebled between 1980 and 2002, which is an extraordinary increase in such a short time. It went from 6 per cent. to 22 per cent. in men, and from 8 per cent. to 23 per cent. in women. The increased prevalence can also be seen in children aged two to 10. Between 1995 and 2003, levels of obesity among children rose from 9.9 per cent. to 13.7 per cent., and the combined overweight and obese levels rose from 22.7 per cent. to 27.7 per cent.
	In my own area of Bedfordshire, it is estimated that approximately one quarter of the adult population—some 83,000 people—are obese. An additional 40 per cent. of men and 30 per cent. of women there are overweight; perhaps 128,000 people there are at an increased health risk. If trends continue, by 2010 94,000 adults in Bedfordshire will be obese. That is an extraordinary number. The sheer number of obese and overweight people from my area would fill Wembley stadium to bursting point. The national costs of obesity are huge. The Health Committee has estimated them at between £3.5 billion and £4 billion a year; if the overweight are included, the figure rises to between £6.6 billion and £7.4 billion a year. Between 1998 and 2004, there was a seventeenfold increase in the drugs used to treat obesity.
	We know the figures, but the lack of interest is remarkable. The Library put together an excellent debate pack. I was struck by Department of Health survey statistics that revealed that just 11.5 per cent. of those with children who are overweight or obese recognise the fact. Only 38 per cent. of adults know that obesity could lead to heart disease, and only 6 per cent. of adults recognise the links between cancer and being obese or overweight.
	I suspect that there is a frustration on both sides of the House that so little is done about the information, despite all our efforts and the fact that it is well known. I praise the efforts of the local authorities in Bedfordshire and the primary care trust in setting the appropriate targets and in aiming for weight reduction, particularly among children. By 2020, their target is to reduce the proportion of obese and overweight children to the levels of the year 2000. They recognise that, sadly, there is only so much to be done with adults, but that as much as possible must be done with children.
	There is a limit to the responsibility of the Government and local government. The provision of information is one aspect of their responsibility and the promotion of active and healthy lifestyles is another. The completion of various cycle ways has made a lot of difference in Bedfordshire. Furthermore, we have schools that are devoted to fitness and healthy food and GPs have joined in the PCT's targets. I should like to refer to two or three particular things that might make a difference. First, we should emphasise fitness rather than only attacking weight. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was coming to this point, before his remarks concluded; I sense the direction in which he was going, and perhaps I complete the point that he was going to make. Sadly, due to the nation's obsession with celebrity and how people look, attacking weight is leading to its own problems, as youngsters get caught up with eating disorders and the like. I was struck by a couple of comments in the Library briefing. At a recent British Dietetic Association conference, Claire Mellors, a dietician, said:
	"a real fear of obesity is an emerging and worrying trend...From my clinical experience I would say that as healthy living messages have become more prevalent, there has been a corresponding rise in referrals for children with disordered eating".
	Andrew Hill, a medical psychologist at the university of Leeds, has said:
	"It is vital that children develop an understanding of why exercise is important. There are risks of inactivity that they do need to know about. But why does it always have to be hung on a peg of obesity? They should grow up enjoying activity, not doing it because it makes them thin."
	We have to be careful in balancing the messages and making sure that they get out.
	Secondly, we have to be prepared to speak out firmly. I noted the point made by the Secretary of State in introducing Change4Life—that it was not about finger wagging and lecturing. However, on some occasions we are entitled to do that. We are all picking up the bill for obesity, and in some cases people can do something about their condition themselves. We must not move completely away from a sense that the issue is about personal responsibility, as well as about providing opportunities for food, exercise, dieting and everything else. If we continue to produce excuses for everybody and say that it is not their fault, but all a cultural thing, we will not get to the necessary stage at which people accept their personal responsibility and do something about it.
	When Jamie Oliver came to give evidence to the House, he was more direct. He said that the issue was not about class or poverty because people had material goods coming out of their ears. The problem was that people had forgotten how to cook and could no longer be bothered to cook. He was very direct and critical, and said things that politicians should say equally clearly. I tell the Minister that she is entitled to wag her finger and tell people that they could do better.

Alistair Burt: That is a fair point. Looking at the commercial practices of companies can lead to difficult issues. On the one hand, they sell goods that people like and enjoy and, in small measure, are good for us—"A little of what you fancy does you good," "Moderation in all things," and so on. Yet when such things are taken to extremes, they cause the very problems that we are speaking about. In addition to the commercial responsibility, there is also the responsibility of individuals, not only when they buy for themselves, but when they buy for others. I want to encourage the Minister: occasionally, a bit of finger wagging may not be a bad thing.
	The encouragement of cookery at school level is important, as the Minister knows because I have told her in the House about the kids' cookery school that I have visited. It tries to provide opportunities for youngsters, particularly in poorer areas, to learn more about practical, basic cooking, which can make such a difference to diet and budget. I encourage her to do more on that issue.
	My last point about finger wagging and lecturing relates to the fashion industry. As a bloke, I am not attracted to size-zero women. The determination to drive women to a particular size because of the notion that that will somehow make them more attractive to blokes and the world at large is misplaced. We love women of all different shapes and sizes. We love them not because of how they look or are dressed, but because of who they are—their spirit, style, humour and everything about them. We do not need an industry to force women into a box. The fashion fascistas should be lectured on every possible occasion by those who say, "Don't do it for us, because we're not interested."
	Finally, I turn to the issue of sport and fitness. I belong to Biggleswade athletic club and I commend all those who work and provide coaching in various youth and sporting organisations. I am also president of the sea cadets in Biggleswade and I know that all youth organisations do so much to encourage physical activity, not only for its own sake but for a sense of the fitness and discipline that go with it. As new houses make the populations of areas such as mine larger, having in place a decent leisure strategy for the growing numbers of people becomes essential. They will need to use facilities that are often undervalued and overrun.
	I pay particular tribute to Phil Dean, who died last week. He was the motivator behind the recent success of the Biggleswade swimming club and a remarkable man whose very nature, spirit and style said much about the area he came from and his personal determination to see youngsters have the chance to be fit and have opportunities for swimming and fitness in my area. He was a giant of a bloke and will be sadly missed by his family and all those who knew him. However, there are many Phil Deans who work hard as youth coaches and motivators, and we need to encourage them all. We need to help volunteering, including in sport, and encourage our youngsters to be fit, rather than just to lose weight. In that way, we will make some progress towards the goals that the Government and all in the House have rightly set.

Andrew Pelling: It is important to give every opportunity to people to take responsibility for their own health, but we must also be cognisant of the important issue of stigma. It is very much the Government's approach to ensure that no stigma is applied to the obese in initiatives to combat obesity. It is important that we recognise that many people suffer from obesity for reasons of genetics or metabolism rather than greed. It is not acceptable for us to take the approach of bullying the school fatty, or for society to hold a view that implies that obesity means slowness of gait, or of wit or mind. Recently, I was the subject of criticism by the Sri Lankan Government because I took an interest in the peace process in that benighted isle. They made many criticisms of me, but one—that I was fat—may well have some truth. That is a sign that accusations concerning size are a matter of stigma, attack and derision.
	More seriously, I would like to speak from personal experience about the important dovetailing of the issues of obesity and mental ill health. I went through a period of mental ill health that coincided with significant changes in weight between 72 kg and 104 kg, which is a range of 44 per cent. I had an illness, followed by purposeful use of antidepressants to improve on my lowered weight, but we must recognise that antidepressants have an unintended effect on the weight of many of those taking them, which can have a significant effect on their willingness to continue to take them. One of the most significant reasons for non-compliance in the taking of important antidepressants is unintended weight loss.
	The Government have been supportive in their provision of additional resources for mental ill health, and in my locality, we benefit greatly from the South London and Maudsley trust, which is an excellent, world-beating provider in the area of mental health. Nevertheless, there is a lack of sufficient resources to provide the counselling, advice and therapy for those with mental ill health, and for those who might need such support in the context of deciding not to continue with their medication because of concerns about the side effects of antidepressant use.
	I would like to mention briefly the way in which combating obesity links to diabetes. My local primary care trust in Croydon has undertaken important initiatives in that area, but I still believe that additional steps could be taken to identify a number of different causes and symptoms of diabetes. It is a particular curse for the large south Asian community in my constituency, and it is most appropriate that we are debating this issue just ahead of world diabetes day.
	Another important link between this subject and ill health is eating disorders, which have already been referred to by other Members. They particularly affect young ladies, who can be oppressed by social and peer pressures. I was impressed by the work done by the Greater London authority. Dee Doocey, who is a Liberal Democrat Member of the London Assembly, and Boris Johnson have considered the matter, and asked whether funding should continue for London fashion week when there is such an obsession with size zero models. Such models put pressure on many young girls and young ladies to believe that they are fat or obese when that can hardly be the case. It is fair to say that I have some doubts about my ability to be a judge in the "Miss Croydon Advertiser" contest that will be taking place this evening at House of Fraser in Croydon, but the good news about that contest is that it is about the style, poise, intelligence and attitude of real people. I know who the finalists are, and they are between sizes eight and 12. It is good to see that people recognise that there is beauty to be found in young people of all sizes, and in all of us.
	I would like to touch briefly on the comments made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the important role of food companies, particularly as there is a great temptation in times of great economic stringency for people to buy cheaply, but wrongly—to buy food that might not be nourishing, but which is more likely to add to their obesity. Despite the rather ill-judged reputation that one company in Croydon has, I am pleased to say that Nestlé UK takes a responsible attitude by ensuring that it sells good food to its customers. It is a very good Croydon company.
	We often make fun of ourselves and the Government by mocking the cross-cutting approach taken across Departments to deal with important social issues. It is ambitious of the Government to pursue proper co-ordination among Departments and between different public sector bodies. It is therefore important to see how the annual report will bear out matters next year in its measurement of providing the most effective co-ordination between Departments, and to extent to which it has been possible to inculcate an absorption policy in local authorities and local schools.
	A number of Members have mentioned the importance of sports. An area of cross-cutting governmental co-ordination I find of interest is the extent to which the Building Schools for the Future programme has taken cognisance of the danger of trying to secure capital receipts and therefore compromising the provision of school playing fields. I am a former chairman of education, and it is fair to say that I have sold playing fields myself, so I plead guilty to that, but I hope that the Government are resisting that temptation.
	It is also important to have joined-up government in the areas of social services and sports provision. I would like to highlight the good practice, which I am sure is being pursued elsewhere, that was taken up as an initiative by Croydon council before the Government took a more national approach. The council saw that there were significant savings to be made in social services care for senior citizens by providing free swimming. Free swimming, at little extra cost, means that many of our senior citizens enjoy a better quality of life, through more active minds and bodies. I congratulate Councillor Steve Hollands on Croydon council on making that policy judgment.
	It will be interesting to note in next year's annual report the extent to which there has been an early trend towards a fall in obesity levels. Perhaps we can also hope for some early savings and a reduction on pressures on the NHS budget as the result of Government initiatives.

Howard Stoate: That is an interesting question, which I can answer. The Select Committee on Health, of which I am now a member, is undertaking an inquiry into health inequalities. Last week, Jamie Oliver came to talk to us about that very issue. I take issue with the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who said that there were two labelling schemes—there are three. One is guideline daily amounts without traffic lights, one is GDA with traffic lights and the other is traffic lights. There are three competing schemes. I told Jamie Oliver at the Health Committee sitting last week that I did not understand the GDA system, and he said that he did not, either. I then asked, "If I'm a mother with three young children and I pick up a packet of something in the supermarket, which says, 'This packet contains 13 per cent. of the GDA for this particular nutrient', what does it mean?" He said that he did not know. This morning, I tackled the Food Standards Agency about the matter, and it could not give me the answer.
	We must have a far more robust mechanism whereby people can receive information quickly. We have the eight-second rule in politics: if we put a letter through someone's letter box, we have eight seconds to convey our message. That is the time it takes to pick up the letter off the floor, take it to the bin and throw it away. That is what happens to political leaflets. People probably have less time than that in the supermarket. If they are busy and trying to buy food for their kids, they pick up a bag of whatever, and think, "Yes, oven chips—in the basket." We must forget the idea that someone can digest a range of nutritional information such as GDA percentages per 100 grams, per half a pack and so on, at the same time as doing the weekly shop with two children in tow. It cannot be done. People do not deliberately avoid or misunderstand the labelling—it is simply opaque and obscure. I have been a doctor for a long time and I do not understand it, so I cannot assume that anybody else does. That is why, frankly, the current voluntary system that food manufacturers and vendors are operating is not working. Voluntary systems did not work with smoking, and in the end we had to legislate. Voluntary systems are not working with food labelling, and we will probably have to legislate on that, too. I ask the Minister to consider that carefully in her response.
	I know that time is pressing and I do not want to detain the House for too long, but we have to take robust action. We need far more robust action on advertising and on point-of-sale labelling and information, so that people have a much better idea of what they are eating and understand exactly what is in it. We must work with the food production industry to ensure that the salt, fat and sugar levels in food are lower wherever possible and to encourage it transfer from saturated to non-saturated fats. All those things can be done, I hope not by forcing the industry, but by persuading it to do them on its own initiative.
	We also need to do more for people in their communities. Many people come to see me as a GP. I am very pleased that we are now measuring body mass index as part of our quality and outcomes framework, so that we at least have records of it. In addition, the Prime Minister's welcome announcement on vascular screening this year means that we are not only weighing a far broader section of the population, but measuring blood pressure and cholesterol levels far more.
	However, it is one thing to identify people with a problem—raised cholesterol, body mass index or whatever it might be—but another to sort it out. I make a plea to the Minister for far more support in general practice, so that when we pick up someone with a problem, we have the resources to address it, instead of just saying, "Get a diet sheet from the nurse" or "Take tablets." I do not want to go down that road. I want to ensure that we have enough information and community resources to refer people to an appropriate service where needed, whether it is a slimming club, a dietician or whatever. It is common to see obese children now, but it is much more difficult for GPs to send them down an appropriate avenue to deal with that obesity.
	Obesity is a serious issue and I am pleased that the House has found time today for this debate. If we do not keep returning to the issue, it might slip off the agenda, and that would be a disaster for us all. I am therefore very pleased indeed that the Government have called this debate and that hon. Members have joined in. I am impressed by hon. Members' information and knowledge about obesity. In other words, everyone is aware of the issue; tackling it is the problem.
	We probably all agree in our hearts that obesity is down to a combination of diet and exercise. Obviously we can disagree about the exact contribution that each makes, but it would quite wrong to assume that one is more to blame than the other. Both are responsible. As a society, we ignore the problem not just at our peril, but at the peril of our children and grandchildren, because if we do not sort it out, it does not bear thinking about.

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to the issues raised in this interesting and well informed debate. Let me start with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), whose comments were echoed by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
	Crucial points were made about balance, and it is important that none of us implies that there is a single answer to the problem; it is far more complex than that. The hon. Member for Southport highlighted the importance of activity, food labelling, cooking healthy food, planning, urban design, advertising, reformulation of foods, using pester power to generate pressure for healthy foods, calories on menus, portion sizes and so forth—all matters of great importance that we are taking forward. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of self-image; the way in which we conduct the debate is crucial for us all—whether it be the Government, non-governmental organisations, local authorities, health service bodies, local communities or whatever. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire touched on that, as did the hon. Member for Croydon, Central.
	The information we convey about maintaining a healthy weight and a healthy lifestyle must not just be about what we eat or how much exercise we take. Nor is it just about making people in our society so obsessed with their diet that they do not eat enough; we have seen the difficulties people get into with eating disorders. As the Minister responsible for public health over the last year and a half, I have sought to be careful with the language that I use and to stress the importance of a healthy lifestyle and living healthier and longer lives rather than going for a one-size-fits-all solution. I endorse all the points that Members have raised in the debate.
	The contribution of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was helpfully divided into four parts. He made international comparisons, which were absolutely valid, and he spoke about the luxury of food and eating what is necessary. The Government can play a role, as highlighted in the Select Committee report, in the matter of portion size, as it takes us into labelling, how much we are eating and what our food contains.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for reliable information. We are bombarded with reports and research from all over the world, but what people need is reliable, simple, accurate information, and that is what Change 4 Life seeks to provide. The hon. Gentleman also perceived a lack of interest. The results of surveys suggest that while people consider obesity to be an important problem, they do not feel that it applies to them. Therein lies the real issue: it is always someone else's problem. Even the parents of obese children do not recognise it.
	The way in which we are conducting the debate on this subject allows us to polarise the issue. We think of it as applying to the person who weighs 50 stone, 20 stone or 30 stone, but once our body mass index rises above 25, we should all be wary of the health implications. We need to ensure that the information is there, that it is accessible and that people perceive it as relevant rather than accusatory or polarising, or paving the way for unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central made the connection with mental health.
	Following the Health Committee's excellent report, the Government acted on all its recommendations. We gave funds to primary care trusts to enable them to produce the necessary information, we updated the child health promotion programmes, we put more funds into the family-nurse partnership, and we changed the national child measurement programme so that parents can be informed of their children's weight and height and told whether the statistics fall within a healthy range. We worked with Ofcom to change the advertising rules, particularly those applying to children.
	The Food Standards Agency has worked relentlessly on reformulations of foods. It has worked relentlessly on salt and sugar, and huge steps have been made, but more needs to be done. The question that I would put to the food industry is, "If some changes can be made by some manufacturers, why cannot all the changes be made by all the manufacturers?" My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) asked that question as well.
	A great deal of work is being done to build on those successes. Following the Health Committee's report, we commissioned the Foresight report. We asked scientists to look critically at all the elements that were contributing to a substantial public-health challenge. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) felt that he did not have all the information that he ought to have in connection with the Health Committee's report. I should be happy to send the details to him, and I hope he is now satisfied that the Government acted on its recommendations.
	As for the healthy towns initiative, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a conversation with his local council. There were 160-odd expressions of interest in the initiative. Councils had to make specific proposals related to what their communities said they needed, and a selection process finally reduced the number to nine. Those nine councils will be monitored, and the measures that are found to work will form the basis of programmes for the future and funding to help all the councils implement their plans.
	That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central. This is about partnership across Government. It is about what can be done by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, by the Department for Transport and by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Of course it is about the Department of Health, but it is also about the Department for Work and Pensions and what we can do with employers to ensure that there are healthy workplaces. We must work with the Food Standards Agency and local authorities through local area agreements and make this issue a high priority. I look forward to that annual report and I hope that Members will welcome the progress that we are making.
	I fear that we will need to return to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on food labelling. The Government have been clear that the best and swiftest agreements to achieve with the industry are those of a voluntary nature, but we have made it clear that if progress cannot be made, we will consider other methods. He is right in terms of comparing ourselves with other countries; there is a great deal of information on food labelling and the traffic light system is very clear, but there is still not one system. That is why the FSA is undertaking research to settle once and for all the best, simplest and most straightforward information that needs to be available on food. It will be based on the traffic light system and will ensure that one of the building blocks—but only one—is in place as the Government work with local government, communities, the health service, NGOs and community activists in partnership to deal with the biggest public health challenge that has faced this country in a very long time.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of combating obesity.

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of promoting International Aid Transparency.
	Some argue that in this time of financial turbulence we should put on hold our ambition to achieve the millennium development goals and turn back from the promises we have made to tackle poverty in developing countries, but as the Prime Minister argued at the United Nations in September, now would be the worst time to turn back. For, as he has stated many times, the global problems we face require global solutions. We cannot tackle dangerous climate change without involving Africa and developing countries. We cannot address pressure on resources and energy without involving Africa and developing countries. We cannot hope to feed the world without involving Africa and developing countries.
	Economic history has shown us that, given the reliance that many such countries have on exports, remittances and aid flows, global downturns can have a devastating and potentially long-term impact on the world's poorest countries. Caribbean and central American countries are already seeing a decline in remittances because of a fall in employment in the United States of America. As such sources of financing begin to decline, spending on essential services such as health, education and water supply can suffer quickly.
	For that reason, the international community must keep its promises to help deliver the millennium development goals. We must keep our pledges on the quantity and quality of aid we provide to the developing world and we must ensure that policies to stabilise the global economy are effective in helping developing countries both to tackle short-term crises and to meet long-term development needs.
	To those ends, I wish to update the House on the United Kingdom's role in launching a new international aid transparency initiative that aims substantially to increase the transparency of information on global aid flows; in securing an ambitious outcome at the recent high-level forum on aid effectiveness in Accra; and in securing global commitments to reinvigorate efforts to meet the millennium development goals at the recent United Nations high-level event in New York. I also wish to inform the House of this Government's ambitions for the Financing for Development conference, which will take place later this month in Doha.

Douglas Alexander: Programmes were put in place in Russia at the time of the change following the fall of the Berlin wall and the change to the Commonwealth of Independent States, as was.  [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish the point. The reason why I answered the question on India and China was because it was what I was asked. That may be an unconventional approach for some, but I endeavour to answer the question that is put to me.
	We do not see ourselves having a long-standing development relationship with Russia, but, once again, it is a country that we want to continue to influence within the international environment. If Russia is looking, as it certainly is, on the basis of the progress that it has made economically in recent years—notwithstanding the recent fall in the stock market and the difficulties that it will face with a falling oil price—to exert its influence internationally, there is a case for having a dialogue with Russia about how it will engage in development issues. In the same way, it is important that we engage with Russia on nuclear proliferation issues and on a wide range of strategic concerns.

Douglas Alexander: I am glad to receive that assurance. If we are in the business of offering assurances this afternoon, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reiterate the commitment to budget support, given the press coverage in  The Daily Telegraph today. At least one of his colleagues, when introducing the debate on global poverty in this House on 24 July, was only too happy to do so. It would be regrettable if the development community in the UK were left with the mistaken perception—as a result of a search for headlines—that the Conservative party had changed its approach on budget support.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State not accept that in these difficult times, it is crucial that there is strong cross-party support for the objectives that the Government have set out? It will be difficult to keep the British people with us, but they have shown that they strongly support international aid and development. Now is not the time for parties to break away from the fundamental commitment to deliver what we have collectively promised.

Douglas Alexander: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—with whom I met President Karzai only this morning—is accountable to this House, which has plenty of opportunity to question him about the conduct of his Department. As I recollect, he appeared only recently in a joint session with the Foreign Secretary—it was before either the Defence Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee—to answer exactly that sort of question in respect of Afghanistan. The House has significant opportunities to hold the Defence Secretary and his ministerial colleagues to account over their conduct of the Department in Afghanistan, other theatres, and elsewhere.
	Transparency helps developing country Governments to plan and manage their budgets. In Rwanda last year, just half of all estimated aid flows to that country were recorded in the national budget, which made it difficult for the Rwandan Government to channel resources to the areas of greatest need.
	In addition, transparency enables citizens to hold their Governments to account. In Uganda, a campaign to give information concerning education funding to the citizens of that country helped to increase the share of funds reaching schools from just 20 per cent. in 1995 to more than 80 per cent. by 2001. Transparency limits the scope for corruption in developing countries. The extractive industries transparency initiative, launched by the Government in 2002, requires Governments, as well as oil and mining companies, publicly to declare the value of contracts. That initiative has helped Nigeria to increase revenue collection by $1 billion—money that is now available to spend on meeting the needs of the Nigerian people. In recognition of the power of such transparency to increase the impact of aid, the Government launched a new international initiative in September. The initiative was intended to make information on aid flows more easily available and accessible, so that citizens of both donor and recipient countries could see where and how aid was invested.
	The United Kingdom launched the international aid transparency initiative at the high-level forum on aid effectiveness in Accra in September this year. We did so, I am glad to say, with the support of 13 major donors, including the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, the European Commission and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The initiative commits donors to publishing more detailed and up-to-date information about aid flows, to giving details and costs of individual projects and their aims, to providing more reliable information about intended future aid, and to agreeing common standards for publishing that information so that it is accessible to everyone.
	The initiative is an important first step towards increasing certainty for both donors and the countries receiving aid, and has been warmly welcomed as such by developing countries and civil society, including by Transparency International and the Publish What You Fund campaign—a coalition including ActionAid and the UK Aid Network. I expect the initiative to be joined by growing numbers of international donors during its design phase, which is under way, and I expect it to be in place by the end of next year.
	In addition to launching the international aid transparency initiative, the United Kingdom played a leading role at the Accra meetings to secure an international agenda for action to improve the quality of global aid. Supported by the outstanding team of civil servants from DFID, I was able to work with my counterparts from across the European Union frankly to raise the level of ambition for the meeting, and to persuade all donors and developing countries to sign up to concrete, time-bound, ambitious agreements to improve the way aid is provided. I would like to inform the House of some of the successes of the meeting, including agreements on mutual accountability, donor co-ordination and predictability of financing.
	The first area of agreement regards mutual accountability between donors and recipient countries. Donors have a legitimate right to monitor the performance of developing country Governments to ensure that aid is well spent—a responsibility that this Government take seriously. We know that aid is more effective when recipient countries in turn monitor donor performance. In Mozambique, for example, independent reviews of both donor and Government performance have helped to improve the predictability of aid and reduce the costs for all parties involved. The House may be interested to learn that such rankings have rated DFID as the most effective donor for the past three years. In Accra, both donors and recipient Governments agreed to develop stronger mechanisms to hold each other accountable for meeting commitments, so that the good practice that I described in Mozambique is in future the rule, not the exception, in international aid.
	The donors gathered in Accra made a commitment to improving the co-ordination of aid. Developing country Governments spend far too much time managing donors, and are left with too little time to conduct the proper business of government as they take their countries forward on their development paths. Over the past four years, Government staff in Uganda have dealt with more than 1,000 donor-led projects. In one year alone, the Government of Vietnam played host to 791 donor missions—more than three for every working day. Government staff in Mozambique have to maintain 1,000 different bank accounts simply to meet differing donor requirements. It was because of such concerns that this Government last year launched the international health partnership to improve donor co-ordination in the health sector. The agreements made in Accra take that approach beyond the health sector. Developing countries committed to taking the lead in co-ordinating and agreeing an effective division of labour between donors. In turn, donors agreed to respect those priorities and work together to put better co-ordination into practice.
	In developing countries where aid funding can be equivalent to as much as 75 per cent. of the national budget, it is vital that donors provide as much clarity as possible regarding intended future aid flows. Our Government are taking part in 10-year agreements in the education sector; as part of that, developing countries provide robust, costed 10-year plans. We have already made such agreements in a number of countries, including Ghana, Mozambique and Rwanda. By doing so, we are giving those countries the confidence that they need to build a school; they know that the money will be there to maintain it, and can train teachers knowing that they can afford to pay a salary at the end of that training.
	In Accra, donors agreed to provide regular and timely information on the aid that they expect to provide in the next three to five years. Donors also agreed to increase the share of aid channelled through to partner country budgets. Those measures will help developing countries to plan and manage their budgets better, to use resources more effectively and to provide the services that their citizens need.
	The successful conclusion to the meeting of donors and developing countries in Accra provided a positive precursor to the high-level event on the millennium development goals held later in September at the United Nations in New York. That meeting brought together literally the broadest alliance ever assembled to fight for a common goal to tackle global poverty. The UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly were joined by 140 countries, alongside dozens of multinational chief executives, faith leaders and non-governmental organisations. The commitments made included a malaria action plan, launched to point the way towards universal coverage of insecticide-treated bed nets by 2010, and achieving near-zero malaria deaths by 2015. Those gathered made commitments to provide emergency food aid in the horn of Africa, and the rapid distribution of support, including seeds and fertilisers for 30 priority countries in time for the next planting season. A major new financing force was launched with the aim of raising funds to help recruit 1 million health workers and save 10 million lives. To get 25 million more children into school by 2010, as a milestone to universal primary education by 2015, international partners launched a "Class of 2015" partnership. Those and other commitments combined to form $16 billion-worth of pledges to tackle poverty. In response, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the meeting
	"an inspiring day at the United Nations".
	As I said at the outset, the coming weeks will, however, be crucial in determining the global response to the slowdown in the world economy. The G20 leaders meeting in Washington this weekend should send a clear and unequivocal signal to the international community of their continued commitment to international development. At the financing for development conference in Doha at the end of this month, donors should agree that changes to international financial regulations will not harm the interests of the poorest countries. All parties should reaffirm the commitments on aid effectiveness made in Accra. Donors should agree to keep promises on aid, as the UK, I am glad to say, is doing, and they should reaffirm their commitment to maintain open markets and resist the threat of protectionism.
	I hope that I have given the House an assurance that the Government are committed to tackling global poverty at a time of global uncertainty. It is not only our moral duty to help our fellow men, women and children to lift themselves out of poverty but it is in our interest as a nation to do so. Government Members, at least, are united in that conviction.
	The financial crisis and its effects have underscored the interdependence of nations at the beginning of the 21st century, and while recent events have shown every family across Britain to be connected to some of the richest people in the world so, too, are we connected to the world's poorest people. In our response to dangerous climate change, the depletion of natural resources, the threat of global disease, and indeed the threats to our global security, there is quite simply no more "over there" and "over here". Tackling those great problems requires a truly global mindset, and calls for global solutions, which means bringing the fifth of the global population who live in extreme poverty into our global community. The United Kingdom will therefore keep working to tackle disease, illiteracy and hunger. As I have set out, we will continue to lead international efforts to ensure that any aid delivered provides the benefits that the world's poorest need, and that British taxpayers rightly demand.

Andrew Mitchell: The year 2008 has been a distinctly mixed one for international development. We remain stubbornly off-track to meet the millennium development goals, and fuel prices and food shortages have left millions at risk. Natural disasters have hit, leaving destruction in their wake—floods in India, a cyclone in Burma, and an earthquake in Pakistan. Manmade emergencies in Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan have brought insecurity and misery to many. Amid all that, the global financial crisis has thrown the whole developing world and the international aid industry into turmoil.
	At the outset, I echo the Secretary of State's opening words about now being a time of hardship when the poor suffer most, and his closing words about the importance, particularly now, of the rich world standing by its commitments. There is, however, some cause for hope. DFID's reputation as an outstanding development agency continues, and we are all rightly proud of it. The Department has continued to fight poverty in some of the world's poorest countries; it has accepted that poor sanitation is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths and launched a new policy for that sector; and, as the Secretary of State outlined, it has led international efforts to improve aid co-ordination, championing in Accra an agreement that serves as a booster to the three-year-old Paris declaration.
	I should like to reassert a point that I have made numerous times in the House and elsewhere, and which the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), made: most people want international development to be removed from the realm of party politics all together. International development policy is not Tory, or Labour, or Liberal, but British. But, of course, we on the Opposition Benches have a role to play in holding the Government to account on their international development work and policies, so we will support and encourage DFID when we believe that it is doing the right thing, but probe and ask questions of it when we think that there is room for improvement. We will also press the Government to do more in areas that we consider to be important. That should be the nature of a responsible Opposition's approach to development, and it is certainly our approach on the Conservative Benches.

Andrew Mitchell: I do not wish to be unfair to the Secretary of State, but before he jumped in, I was just about to answer my hon. Friend by saying that a transparent international aid policy is one that is accountable to its investors, the British taxpayer, as well as to its end-users, the local people in developing countries. The policy must be efficient and effective, or face a critical response from those who have a stake in it. Most importantly, it must deliver.
	We welcome the launch of the international aid transparency initiative. We Conservatives have repeatedly championed greater transparency in aid. We have consistently argued—not least as I did in my speech at the Conservative party conference the year before; as the Secretary of State is an enthusiast of my speeches, he will have noticed—that as well as championing effectiveness in aid spending, we must stand up for transparency. We will watch closely to ensure that the new international aid transparency initiative is fully implemented by the Department for International Development and the other agencies that have signed up to it.
	The Secretary of State has no room for complacency on this issue. One of the initiative's commitments is to:
	"share more detailed and more up-to-date information about aid in a form that makes information more accessible to all relevant stakeholders."
	There is a great deal to be done to put flesh on the bones of that promise. The DFID website is a most important tool, but it is woefully light on information about DFID spending on development. When country profiles exist, they often lack up-to-date, systematic detail on what DFID money has been spent on and how. Many recipients of our aid do not even have a country profile on the website, and in many country programmes there is no obvious way for a member of the public in a developing country to find out in detail how DFID aid money is being spent there.
	For example, the DFID website offers just a few paragraphs about how our £3 million aid budget is spent in The Gambia and contains no easily accessible detail about the six major sectors in which many millions of British pounds will be spent in that country in the next few years. I am not talking about complicated information, and it should not effectively be classified information.
	There are good precedents for greater transparency. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria publishes on its website all its budgets and spending decisions in each of the countries where it works. Like its websites for other countries, its website for The Gambia clearly explains who the local fund agent is, the exact amount of the approved grants down to the last dollar, the name of the principal recipient, the amount actually disbursed, a disbursement rating, and the dates on which the programme started and the money was disbursed. It also gives details of unsuccessful proposals.
	Let no one be in any doubt about the importance of the DFID website. It is not only the vital means through which British people can find out how their money is being spent, but an essential reference point for journalists, civil society and ordinary citizens in developing countries. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to redesigning the DFID website, but will he reassure me that its content—and not only its appearance—will be comprehensively overhauled? Will he learn lessons from sites such as that of the global health fund and publish a detailed breakdown of spending to which everyone can have access?
	I also have a query about changes in the figures published from one year to the next. The casual observer in London, Nairobi or Freetown would not necessarily spot them straight away, but the Conservative international development team is nothing if not sharp-eyed. In the Department's report, the statistics show that no money was spent in Djibouti in 2006-07. When the new international development statistics were published in October, the figure was mysteriously changed to £4 million, apparently all for other bilateral aid. Similarly, the Madagascan bilateral programme rose by £14 million and the Ghanaian programme by £13 million; there are numerous other examples. In the winding up, will the Minister explain the reasons for those discrepancies and will a system for explaining them as they arise be established? A revamped website with comprehensive information will be seriously hindered if the statistics in it can be changed year on year without explanation.

Andrew Mitchell: I have been generous in giving way to the Secretary of State again, but he must wait until I come to that passage in my speech.
	The Secretary of State seems to view transparency in terms of processes and inputs—being open about what we are spending and where. That is a good start, but it is only half of the story. We also need transparency about outcomes and outputs—what our aid is actively achieving on the ground. Once again, I urge him to consider carefully our proposal for a fully independent aid evaluation watchdog to be set up to report to Parliament, not to the Secretary of State.
	The Government have enthusiastically promoted a policy of direct budget support—here I come to the point about which the Secretary of State has intervened twice—whereby Britain hands money directly to Governments in developing countries to spend according to their own expenditure and audit systems in support of their national poverty reduction plans. In 2007-08, £366 million of British aid was spent in that way. According to the respected non-governmental organisation, Transparency International, the UK gives some of its largest donations to Governments who have real problems with governance and corruption. For example, Tanzania ranks 102nd on the corruption index, yet it received £105 million as direct budget support last year. In February this year, President Kikwete of Tanzania dissolved his entire cabinet following a financial scandal, and in January he fired the head of the central bank after international auditors found that more than US$120 million was missing.
	Uganda ranks 126th on the Transparency International index, down from 111th in 2007, yet it received £35 million in direct budget support from Britain. President Museveni is planning to buy a new £24 million G5 Gulfstream jet plane. In 2006, massive corruption in the Ugandan health ministry was exposed. In June this year, an important report by the Public Accounts Committee warned the Government about direct budget support.

Andrew Mitchell: I have already made it clear to the Secretary of State that putting budget support into a general budget exercises little control on the taxpayer's behalf in monitoring its effectiveness and value for money. He does not have to take my word for it—he can take that of the authoritative Public Accounts Committee, which made that very point.
	Last month, the National Audit Office report on the Department's performance in insecure environments revealed evidence of serious corruption in DFID projects in Iraq and poor project design and performance in Afghanistan. It found that only half DFID projects in the most insecure countries achieve their aims and that almost a quarter suffer from fraud and financial problems.
	As I witnessed in Afghanistan recently, brave DFID staff work hard in dangerous environments to improve people's lives, but their individual courage must be supported by radical policy and management improvements. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Department learns the lessons and implements the recommendations of that important NAO report? I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on that in his winding-up speech.
	The most important driver of international development is clearly economic growth, which lifts people out of poverty and gets developing countries on their feet. One has only to consider China, India and Brazil to realise the truth of that. However, the Doha round of trade talks has ground to a halt and shown no sign of life for many months. Now that one of the big obstacles to an agreement—the elections in the United States—is out of the way, what is the Secretary of State doing to kick-start the talks? Will he make a point of going around the capital cities of Europe, banging the drum for an agreement on a pro-poor trade deal that developed and developing countries alike can accept?
	Now that the former Trade Commissioner has returned once again to a seat at the Cabinet table, and bearing in mind that he won the occasional admirer, not least from the Conservative Benches, for his efforts to free up the international trading system, will the Secretary of State consult his good friend, the noble Lord, about the steps that the Government should take to reinvigorate the Doha process?

Tom Clarke: Indeed. I agree that we are all entitled to express our opinions, and I am about to express mine.
	We were asked, for example, about India. What are we to assume from these interventions? Members of all parties visited India a year or two ago to examine the very serious issue of tuberculosis, yet 1,000 people still die there every day. Quite frankly, the people we met there in the saddest of circumstances were not asking questions about their Government's foreign policy or about nuclear weapons. The same applied when, as I vividly recall, we visited Uganda. Lord Steele was with us on that visit. We sat outside a mud hut where a young man, surrounded by his family, friends and other villagers, was within just a few hours of dying of HIV/AIDS. Again, frankly, most of those people did not ask about the policies of their Government. I am not saying that we should not ask about them, but what I am saying very strongly is that I have never believed that individual human beings, wherever they live, from Delhi to Darfur, should be punished because of the policies of their Governments.
	Let me continue with the points that I had intended to make. Given the global crisis, I welcome the commitment given by Opposition Front Benchers as well as by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to foreign aid at 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013 or, indeed, earlier. When I last raised this matter on 16 July, my right hon. Friend gave me an assurance that the Government were still on course to achieve that target. I believe that the House has reached a consensus on the matter over the years, notwithstanding what might have been said today, and I also know that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about it. If individual Members put it on the record that they believe in this agreement and if all the political parties adhere to it in their manifestos, I will certainly leave the House a much happier person.
	I welcome this debate. As has been said, it is consistent with the aims of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, which I had the privilege of piloting through the House with a great deal of support. The Act will mainly be remembered because it has led this Government—and it will be compelling for future Governments—to present an annual report to the House. Principal among the issues that we expect to be covered is how well we are doing on the 0.7 per cent. GNI target and, I hope, by how much we have advanced on it. The Act embraces our commitment to the millennium development goals. Given that its title includes the very word "transparency", transparency is clearly of the essence—and I am very pleased that the Government have taken it on board.
	In the same spirit, I welcome DFID's recent annual report to Parliament, which we have not had a chance to debate until today. I genuinely believe that this report is excellent. It is an informative tome for scholars and members of the public alike, presenting helpful information in a clear and transparent way about what is being done and what needs to be done. Indeed, armed with that information, our debate helps to underline how important transparency is and how the report takes us forward.
	I do not want to get into further exchanges with Conservative Members, but I gently point out to them the European Union issues covered in the latest annual report. Page 115 presents a comprehensive and transparent account of our relationship with the EU. It even gives the Government's interpretation of the Lisbon treaty. I do not think for a second that my right hon. Friend can reasonably be criticised on that score.
	There must be transparency at every level: in the Department itself, in terms of coherence between Departments, and in the holding to account of the European Union as well as the other international bodies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I welcome DFID's commitment to the international aid transparency initiative, but the truth is that it works both ways. The developed countries must know where the money is supposed to go, and the developing countries must know when it will arrive and how much there will be. The absence of that knowledge has been cited as one of the main reasons for the lack of aid effectiveness. Most important of all, the people who are meant to be helped by the aid must know when it is coming and how it should be spent. That enables us to judge whether it is being spent as effectively as we all want it to be.
	There are a variety of ways in which the Governments of developed and developing countries can help. In Uganda, for example, an information campaign helped to increase the share of funds reaching schools from 20 per cent. in 1995 to 80 per cent. in 2001. We can only imagine the positive impact that that is having on people's lives.
	I want to talk about some current issues, in each of which transparency is of the essence. I followed last week's debate on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but it is appropriate to return to that important subject. I say that especially in view of the announcement by the United Nations earlier today that 3,000 more troops were to be sent to the eastern DRC. That is a positive action which I broadly welcome, but I feel that there are other countries, particularly in that region, with a wider role to play. I am thinking particularly of Rwanda. As this is a debate about aid and transparency, I think it appropriate to point out that we give the Rwandan Government £46 million in aid every year. I think that I am as familiar as anyone can be with the circumstances in Rwanda and the DRC, both of which I visited recently. On those visits, along with colleagues, I had the opportunity to meet Presidents Kabila and Kagame.
	As was mentioned in last Thursday's debate, our programme of aid for Rwanda comes with a 10-year memorandum of understanding which expressly states that the Rwandan Government must be committed to regional stability. It was therefore a great shock to me to read the following comments of a spokesperson from the Rwandan Foreign Ministry:
	"The prevailing assumption that the crisis is a matter between Rwanda and the DRC is wrong, contrary to what some in the international community continue to say. This misconception leads some parties seeking to intervene to demand a meeting between the heads of state of Rwanda and the DRC as a solution to the internal crisis in the DRC."
	That strikes me as somewhat naive. The DRC crisis is a problem on Rwanda's doorstep, and President Kagame's unique status gives him the opportunity to exert a positive influence on an outcome that could lead to the kind of reconciliation that Rwanda itself has experienced.

David Davies: No. If the Minister cares to look at what I just said, I made a factual comment.  [ Interruption. ] Hang on, will the Minister listen to me for a moment? I made a factual comment about the head of DFID in Uganda who was not able to see us on a cross-party visit with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 2006. If he wants to check his facts, I am more than happy for him to do so. What I am giving is a factual statement, and I am not making any comment about DFID members of staff in other parts of the world. The Minister had better check the record, and perhaps he will apologise to me when he has done so and realises that his comments were a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I do not believe, however, that members of DFID are risking their lives in Kampala. They would do so if they went to northern Uganda and Gulu province, but they are based in a first-world office block in Kampala. No doubt, they go to that province on occasion, but it is not where they are based, and Kampala is not a particularly dangerous place. If it was, I was risking my life, along with other Members of Parliament, many of them in the Chamber today, who have been there.
	My experience of DFID led me to table a few parliamentary questions. One of the first was about the number of offices that it had. Now, I shall give the Minister credit for one thing, which is that DFID's mission statement, when compared with most Departments', is—surprisingly—absolutely clear and, I might add, a refreshing change. Its website states that DFID is all about handling Britain's aid to the world's poorest countries, so I looked through the list of places where DFID has offices, and I was surprised to find that among the places that are presumably considered poor are Paris, Vienna, Geneva and Brussels. The United States of America obviously suffers from a great deal of poverty, because it has two DFID offices, one in Washington and one in New York.
	I should like to know from the Minister why we have a base in sunny Barbados, where the average GDP is $19,000 per head. It also benefits from the munificence of the British taxpayers and the presence of a DFID office, which, the website states, is there to draw up regional development plans. No doubt if any staff take offence at my speech, they will demand that I come over and see how hard they are working. I might be available around about Christmas time, if the Minister wants to sanction that one.
	There are other offices about which I have questions, and other Members have already mentioned some. Those offices are located in cities in Brazil, South Africa, Thailand and Russia. Poverty exists in all those countries, there is no doubt about it, but those countries also have huge amounts of wealth. They are not really the poorest of the poor, but countries where, if there were a will, something could be done about the existing poverty. In the case of Russia in particular, I find it extraordinary that, on the one hand, we make bellicose statements to its Government about what they have done in South Ossetia, even though it now appears that the whole thing was started by another country, while, on the other, we hand out aid to them. It seems to be a remarkable contradiction. Yes, people are dying of tuberculosis in India, and that is an absolute tragedy, but there are people dying of starvation in British hospitals, and that is also an absolute tragedy.
	The fact is that we should send our aid to countries where we can make a difference. Why on earth, therefore, do we bother to send millions of pounds in aid to China, for heaven's sake? China is likely to overtake America as one of the world's great superpowers over the next few decades; it is spending millions of pounds on its space programme and on its nuclear weapons; it has just announced that it is going to try to build a bigger navy than America's; and, irony of ironies, we saw plenty of evidence of China's own aid programme in Uganda, where it is building Government offices. We give money to the Chinese, and the Chinese give their money to African nations, securing all sorts of concessions in return. The idea that in 20 or 30 years' time, the Chinese, as one of the world's pre-eminent superpowers, will look back and think, "Oh, we'll treat the British slightly differently because they gave us what in relative terms was a small amount of money," just shows the left-wing, colonial and patronising attitude that is all too prevalent in some parts of the Government and, dare I say it, in Departments. They think that because we give out relatively small amounts of money, somebody is going to care or remember in a few decades' time. It is complete and utter naiveté, and as someone who has a Chinese family, I can assure the House that the Chinese must be laughing up their sleeves at it.
	One of my basic concerns is that we are spending a vast amount of money paying first-world salaries and first-world rents for offices in countries throughout the world. The parliamentary answer that I have before me is about two years old, but it is simply a list of all our DFID offices. I totted them up, and there were about 80.

Malcolm Bruce: I understand, and I am grateful for that intervention. I am simply trying to say that we can imagine the consequences if we cannot reach those people soon.
	Several of us attended the round-table briefing about Afghanistan, which brought us up to date, at the Foreign Office this morning. The results of a BBC poll, based on a stark and rather silly question, were published yesterday and showed that 68 per cent. of the British people wanted our troops to be withdrawn within a year. The question did not provide any context, but revealed a problem. Liberal Democrat Members—and, I believe, most Members—believe that engagement with Afghanistan is necessary. It is in the interests of British security and right for the people of Afghanistan, even if it is a difficult and challenging place to be. There are concerns about the way in which we communicate that.
	It is understandable, given that the United Kingdom's military commitment is in Helmand and that significant numbers of men and women in our armed forces are dying in that engagement, that the British people question the reason for putting our troops in harm's way to that extent in such a far-away place. That tends to lead to an exclusive focus on what happens in Helmand, and does not take into account the fact that Afghanistan is a substantial country, and that not everywhere is in the same position as Helmand. Indeed, approximately 75 to 80 per cent. of British aid and development expenditure happens in other parts of the country through the national Government to help achieve important development objectives, such as getting children, including more than 2 million girls, back into school, and impressively providing at least basic health care throughout the country. Other objectives include improving communications and roads and are mostly financed by the United States. In other words, the picture is not all negative and bad.
	The nature of society in Afghanistan means that it has never had a unified Government and bureaucracy running the entire country. It has always been run through some form of agency—local leaders, warlords, tribal chiefs and so on. It is therefore not surprising that that continues to happen to some extent. It does not mean that the country is not being governed, that state money is not being properly spent or that services are not reaching the people. However, as our Committee found when we visited, the people of Afghanistan are all too often unaware of what is happening. It is simple for a local governor to pretend that all the largesse—it is not much largesse; we are considering a very poor country—is somehow his creation rather than something that has come from the central Government. Similarly, central Government want to claim the credit, rather than admit that the help comes from the international community.
	That is a dilemma. It is a problem if we cannot win the Afghan people's hearts and minds and show them that we are in a genuine partnership—a partnership between the international community and the people, to try to achieve the stability and ability to develop that they want, and between the people of our country and Afghanistan to enable it to build up a viable state.
	That is a challenge for us, but we all have a responsibility to fulfil it, at least so that the great sacrifices of our forces will have been made not in vain or for a failed project, but for one that, however difficult, might ultimately be achieved. I suggest—I say this with the Secretary of State in his place once more—that there is scope for more explanation of the interaction between the military and DFID in Afghanistan and of how things work. Those of us who are engaged in the debate understand that, but even in the House and certainly among the wider public, there is a lack of understanding about how those aspects interact. There is a form of transparency that is not about just money, but about understanding aims and objectives and what is happening.
	The Secretary of State quite understandably mentioned the undertakings that were made in Accra and has probably read, as I have, Simon Maxwell's blog. Having honestly said that he was not sure what Accra was all about when he went, Simon Maxwell paid tribute to the Secretary of State for the energy that he had expended in trying to secure an agreement that contained real commitments, rather than just platitudinous statements, which is what people told the Committee they feared it would contain when we visited earlier in the year. I am happy to share that acknowledgment. As Simon Maxwell also said, it is fine to get a lot of countries signing up to a big commitment, but people will want to see what that means in terms of ownership and buy-in.
	That leads me back—I am happy to conclude on this point—to the relationship between the donors and the developing countries and the people living there. The reason why DFID was created as a distinct Department was to separate foreign policy from development and to focus on poverty reduction, so that development policy would not be compromised by being an instrument of foreign policy or by commercial interests. That has been a success, both in persuading the British people that our aid programme is worthy of support and in determining our approach, which has helped DFID to achieve a position of leadership throughout the world.
	I must also echo what the Under-Secretary said. The entire staff of DFID comprise about 2,500 people, which includes foreign nationals employed in overseas office. That core—the UK part of it, at least—is under the same strictures of staff reduction as staff in other Departments are. That is a challenge for the Department and there is no doubt a shortage of expertise. There are ways around the problem, ingenious or not, that need to be pursued. There are also questions about how one might prioritise—in terms not only of money, but of staff—what we do and do not do, both sectorally and in individual countries.
	Although I did not take too much to the style of the speech that the hon. Member for Monmouth made, it is always perfectly possible to conduct a proper review of the number of countries we engage in and how effectively we do so, although I understand that a significant number of offices have been closed this year.

Malcolm Bruce: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Committee has not completed its report this year, but we certainly acknowledge the pressures and have expressed our concerns. The permanent secretary is obviously constrained by the rules across Government, but she conceded that the Department was struggling. That is something that we should take to heart.
	I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the website, which I believe has some merit, and to ask the Department to consider it. Perhaps the Secretary of State could give some thought to the exact purpose of the website. Whenever our Committee visits countries in which we have an engaged programme, we visit DFID. I am sure that other Committees visit their relevant Departments. We usually get an extremely thorough, detailed briefing from the DFID office, showing what is being spent, what the priorities are, the breakdown, and an honest question and answer session. A lot of that information could be in the public domain. It would help if we could go to the website and find out exactly what the budget is and what the priorities are in more detail and in a more up-to-date way. That would make the website more interactively beneficial and the Department more transparent. It could address some of the concerns: it is not that people are against what is being done; they just do not know what is being done, which makes them either suspicious or inclined to ask questions. Will the Secretary of State consider whether more could be done to make the information more accessible and transparent?
	The Committee's report looked at how we as a country and the international donor community could work more effectively together. It became clear in that process that how effectively we can work depends on whom we are working with. The Committee, in choosing which of our European partners to have a dialogue with, made a journey from Rome to Berlin to Copenhagen and then, via video link, to Stockholm. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am glad that we did it in that order, because the reverse process would have been deeply depressing.
	The reality, as far as I can see, is that the Italians have pretty well opted out of supporting the commitment to international aid and development. The previous Italian Government were in the process of setting up their own development agency; the present Italian Government have abandoned it. I am grateful that they are continuing to support the multi-national organisations, but that is probably about saving face among their peers. They support the Rome-based institutions but, beyond that, there is very little commitment.
	I do not want to do a qualitative analysis, but there is a group of countries that we, the Foreign Office and DFID call the northern liberals, and which the Scandinavian countries refer to as the Nordic-plus countries—basically, the Scandinavian countries, plus the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland. We are definitely like-minded and work together. Doing so can have a huge impact in driving the right kind of development. By that, I mean development that is designed to reduce poverty, to give poor people in developing countries a degree of ownership and control over the quality of aid and development, and to help them to call their Governments to account. In that way, they can be part of the process of lifting themselves out of poverty and achieving the success and development that they have been denied for so long, but which they richly deserve.

Stephen Crabb: This is an important debate and there is not much time left, so I shall try not to go over the ground that other hon. Members have covered.
	It was slightly regrettable that the Secretary of State injected a rather partisan tone into his contribution. Under his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), we had some really good international development debates in the Chamber. There was space for disagreement about how to achieve objectives, but there was a large measure of cross-party agreement on the commitment to reducing poverty. We lost a lot of time earlier in the debate with a rather artificial quarrel that was picked by Labour Members about our commitment—or our alleged lack of commitment—to tackling poverty in the world's poorest countries.
	There are two backdrops to the debate, the first of which is the ongoing effort to achieve greater transparency on international aid. Tribute has been paid to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who introduced a private Member's Bill on the matter that made strides in that direction. However, the agenda clearly has a long way to run to establish good linkage between, on the one hand, the high-level rhetoric that we use in the Chamber about development, the commitment to tackling poverty around the world, and the nature of our interventions and assistance, and, on the other hand, the hard outcomes such as the lives saved, the children educated, and all the things that members of the public would understand.
	The second backdrop is the current economic crisis, which is not just a crisis for the developed world, but very much for the developing world, too. Other Members may not share my experience, but I am no longer receiving any letters or e-mails from constituents urging me to do more to tackle global poverty. When I was elected three and a half years ago, I was flooded with postcards, campaign letters and e-mails as part of the "Make Poverty History" campaign. The agenda has moved on, so where we agree on the promise to give 0.7 per cent. of our gross national income in overseas assistance and to do more to tackle global poverty, it is now incumbent on us to remake the case for more and better aid.
	There is still a cross-party consensus on this issue, but the mood of the public has changed discernibly and understandably, at a time when many of my constituents are fearful of losing their jobs, when many jobs are being lost up and down the country and when people are having their homes repossessed. Quite rightly, their first thoughts and concerns are about their immediate livelihoods. There remains a huge amount of public good will and residual support for doing more to tackle global poverty, but it is understandable that people's immediate concerns have moved on. We have to remake the case, as I said, for this rather large and quick ramping up of overseas aid spending that the Secretary of State has announced.
	Let me deal briefly with a couple of other points. On aid to China and India, if hon. Members of any party choose to question whether continuing our overseas aid programmes to those countries is the best use of our resources, particularly given that they are both making big strides towards reaching middle-income status, that does not necessarily imply that they are any less committed to tackling global poverty. It is arrogant, however, to believe that the £40 million or £50 million of overseas aid that we give to China each year makes a jot of difference to the country's progress towards reducing poverty. Its success in doing so is almost all down to the remarkable economic growth rates that the country has achieved.
	I do not agree that we should cut our aid programme to India, on the other hand, because the country still has the world's largest concentration of poor people, and a third of the poorest. We will need a substantial programme in India for some time to come. We can still ask about the nature of our programme and whether enough goes to support judicial or police effectiveness, for example, which might do more to reduce the propensity towards communal violence that we saw this summer when the Christian community was attacked in Orissa state. Those sort of measures might help to further India's trajectory of growth and rising prosperity, but I do not think that large-scale poverty reduction programmes funded by ourselves will be what does it for a country the size of India.
	I want to conclude with some points about Zimbabwe. In last week's International Development questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) asked about aid to Zimbabwe, and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) replied:
	"The aid that we give to Zimbabwe goes directly to the United Nations and does not go through any governmental organisations within Zimbabwe."—[ Official Report, 5 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 238.]
	He and Ministers before him have gone to great lengths to demonstrate to the House and the public that we have not supported Mugabe's regime with overseas aid. However, the answer he provided to my hon. Friend did not paint quite the whole picture. He tried to maintain that our aid does not go through any of the Zimbabwe governmental organisations, but the global fund—a multilateral initiative to which we are a major donor; we have some leverage over its policy—is about to make a very substantial contribution to Zimbabwe. It is going to be deposited directly in the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, which is controlled by one of Mugabe's henchmen. It is entirely legitimate to raise that issue in the context of wanting greater transparency about the aid we give to that country. I hope that when the Minister concludes the debate he will return to this point and clarify whether he is satisfied that an adequate assessment has been made of the risk attached to this considerable sum of money, which the Government of Zimbabwe will shortly receive.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend has rightly corrected me: it is 14 years.
	What is the Minister going to do? How does he propose to explain to our citizens how this money is spent? Surely our citizens deserve to be briefed in a far better way about the transparency of the EU, and about how it spends British taxpayers' money abroad. I have no doubt that some of the work that the EU does is important and vital, but I shall be asking the Chairman of the Select Committee to invite the relevant Commissioner from Brussels to come before our Committee to explain to us how the EU budget is spent. We also need an independent aid watchdog, as my hon. Friends have said, to provide impartial and objective analysis—a watchdog that will report to the Select Committee, on which I sit, and to Parliament, rather than, as at present, organisations reporting directly to the Minister.
	What tangible progress has the governance and transparency fund made to allow citizens to make their own voices heard? Conservatives are committed to publishing full details of all British aid spending on the DFID website. Why will not the Government follow suit?
	Many articles have appeared in our national newspapers about corruption, which has been referred to. One which took me aback was that the President of Congo-Brazzaville has many luxury apartments in Paris and Monte Carlo. Why does  The Daily Telegraph and other media cover this? It is simply because it sells newspapers. Why does it sell newspapers? Because it is a travesty; it is strange for the President of Congo-Brazzaville to have yachts in Monte Carlo and luxury flats in some of the best residential parts of Paris while aid is going to that country. Is the Secretary of State raising the issues directly with the President of Congo-Brazzaville?
	The King of Swaziland has bought a huge luxury jet. What amazed me is that he spent more on his birthday party celebrations than the entire amount of UK aid to that country. He spent the equivalent of all our aid that we gave to Swaziland on his 36th birthday party. I find that simply unacceptable when I am fighting tooth and nail for life-saving drugs for my constituents. That is why it is so important to hold the Government to account on these matters.
	I have been extremely upset—I have never been so emotional—by the Government's arrogance in dismissing our genuine concerns. The conduct of the Under-Secretary towards my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) was breathtaking to say the least. We need to challenge these corrupt leaders and make them realise that we will continue to give aid only if they clean up their act and are not prepared to be corrupt any more.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reasonable explanation, as always, and for his apology.
	There was a certain amount of scoffing during the debate that the Opposition international development team were not robust or inquiring. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) cited a blog that said that the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition were merely a "derivative" of the Government's policies, but she failed to read out the entire quotation. During the course of the debate, our excellent research team have been able to find the full quote, which goes on to state that the Opposition's policies contain
	"a number of sensible proposals"
	and that there are
	"plenty of good things to be said about them".
	If we are to get the quotes right in this debate, we must cite them in their entirety and not just partially.
	The international transparency commitment largely stemmed from what happened in Accra, as the Secretary of State made clear. We wholly concur with the view that there should be better aid co-ordination, publication and effectiveness, and he cited the example of Mozambique in support of that. It must be right that both donors and recipients have their performances well and truly scrutinised, but I make no apology for any criticism that I make in summing up in this debate, because any Department can always do a little better.
	A number of good speeches have been made this afternoon, but the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was important in one respect: he has had a long-standing commitment to ensuring that our aid is properly scrutinised and audited, and that there should be a proper, independent audit watchdog. That is paramount to Conservative party policy.
	A number of things have been said about how and where our aid is spent, and which countries receive it. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned Russia and the fact that it has built up a sovereign wealth fund of $500 billion. I think that the British Government have now stopped all aid to Russia, but I ask the Minister to confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome it, if it is true. Of course, the Conservatives also wish to curtail UK aid to China. In no way do we wish to resile from our 0.7 per cent. target, but we simply feel that a country such as China, which has a GNI that works out at more than $2,500 a head, should be coping with its own problems from its own huge surplus. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that the UK should continue to give aid to India, because it has the greatest concentration of poor people on earth; it will shortly have more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa put together. It must be right that we continue to give aid to that country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned the responsibility to protect. In the short time available to me, I wish to raise a few issues with the Minister. If we cannot encourage the international community to come up with a solution to dreadful problems such as the vast suffering in the Congo, in Darfur, which was mentioned by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), in Zimbabwe, which has been mentioned by other speakers, and in Burma, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, intervening at an earlier stage on the basis of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which was introduced by the United Nations in 2005, that doctrine will shortly mean very little. All in the civilised world need to pay close attention to that.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, was right to mention President-elect Obama. We were delighted by that outcome and, like the Secretary of State and the Government, we look forward to a positive agenda and relationship with the incoming Administration. In that connection, there are two important multilateral discussions going on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one—the trade round in Doha. The third world—the poorest people on earth—has more to gain from a successful Doha round than do richer nations. Therefore, it is important that we breathe new life into those negotiations. To all those countries and areas—India, the US, the EU and Argentina, for example—that have, at some point in the negotiations, put up blocks that have meant that the negotiations have not so far succeeded, we say that they need to be prepared to compromise so that we can have a successful round.
	The Government could give those talks much more impetus. The international trade round is so important because it means, among other things, that a small country can take one of the largest countries on earth to the world trade court and, through a relatively informal process, obtain a judgment against it.
	The second round of multilateral talks is on climate change, with the summit in Potsdam next month, culminating in the summit in Copenhagen neat year. It is important to try to reach agreement on those, because if we do not manage to agree on carbon emissions—and limit the increase in external world temperature to just 2 per cent. in the next 50 years—world temperatures may spiral much higher. To put that threat in context, I would point out that the last ice age was only 5° below the present temperature. Again, it will be some of the poorest countries on earth that will suffer, and we have begun to see that in famine, flood, tsunamis and other events attached to climate change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raised the problem of DFID not being prepared to meet his delegation from the CPA. The Opposition's policies would prevent that from happening, because officials in DFID would have to be fully immersed in the communities to which aid was being given, instead of sitting in the capitals.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made several important points. I cannot go over them all, but one of his themes, which has been echoed throughout the debate, was direct budgetary support. As the Secretary of State said, aid funding is up to 75 per cent. of the national budget in some countries. Indeed, in Rwanda, which several of us visited in the summer, total development aid is about 50 per cent. That is undesirable. We should give these countries a hand-up so that they can start to wean themselves off international help.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Afghanistan, a country that needs more of a hand-up than most. This morning, he and I attended a round-table conference at the Foreign Office on Afghanistan, and one theme that emerged was that the international effort there is not being disseminated to the public very well. If our constituents only see the worst coming out of Afghanistan, they will be very sceptical about our efforts. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that what the public do see is very Helmand-centric. However, there are many things happening, not least of which is the number of girls going back to school, which is wholly to be welcomed. Other positives include the number of roads and hospitals being built, which are very welcome indeed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire made some important points, not least about the world economic situation. At a time when we are all running into deeper and deeper economic problems, even recession, it is regrettable that several countries are thinking about reducing their international aid efforts. The Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned the possibility that Italy will do so. That is highly regrettable. If we are to make proper progress with some of the world's worst problems, we have to bear that in mind. We all want to meet the millennium development goals that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but we are a long way off meeting some of them—most notably the goals on universal education and climate change. That is highly regrettable. We should breathe more life into that.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, if the doctrine of responsibility to protect is to be worth anything, we have to find solutions to the dreadful problems in such places as the DRC, Zimbabwe and Darfur. It should not be beyond the wit of the civilised western world in the 21st century to find solutions to those problems and to intervene at an earlier stage, so that hundreds of thousands of people are not displaced from their homes and killed needlessly. There is a lot to be done, and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say about what he is doing.

Ivan Lewis: On the whole, this has been a high-quality debate. I want to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the importance of maintaining global support for development despite the economic downturn. Now is not the time for either the United Kingdom or our international partners to turn our backs on the world's poorest people. As developing countries are hit by the global economic downturn, they need our support more than ever, and we need theirs. If we are to tackle global challenges such as climate change, resource shortages and growing demands for energy, we will not be able to do it alone.
	Now is not the time to undermine confidence and support among the British people in investment in development, either in pursuit of a cheap headline or as a manifestation of a future hidden agenda. It is essential that we work together with developing countries and that we keep our promises to deliver more and better aid and to meet the millennium development goals by 2015. In order to do that, donors need to make sure that every penny we spend is put to the best possible use. As my right hon. Friend said when he opened the debate, DFID is playing a key role in improving the effectiveness of our aid and ensuring that other donors provide aid as effectively as we do.
	Our leadership at Accra meant that developing countries can now expect to receive longer-term support from donors that is better co-ordinated and makes better use of their budget systems. We secured agreements that donors and developing countries would hold each other more accountable for the use of aid and we pushed hard to improve the global transparency of aid through the international aid transparency initiative.
	We are leading by example. We have already met seven of the 10 Paris declaration targets on aid effectiveness and are on track to meet the remaining three. We have developed an independent advisory committee on development impact to provide a serious challenge function to DFID's work, with independent membership and National Audit Office observation. We have strong systems in place to control and monitor the expenditure of UK aid and are supporting developing countries in their efforts to fight corruption. By putting such measures in place, we can be confident that UK aid is having the greatest possible impact. Later this month, we will once again be at the forefront of the fight against poverty at the financing for development conference in Doha.
	Let me turn to the contributions that have been made during the course of the debate. First, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) took the opportunity, once again, to describe DFID as a world leader in the field of development. I thank him for recognising that on behalf of all those who work incredibly hard on the front line in some of the poorest countries in the world. His comments were in stark contrast to some of the contributions made by Back-Bench Members of his party. He said that we should remove this subject from the realm of party politics. As a new member of this team, I am delighted to see that we appear to have political consensus on the importance of this country's leadership in international development.
	Equally, I would say that the Conservative party has a record and form from the time it was in government. It is also true—let us make it clear—that this Government and, more specifically, this Prime Minister have led the world in demanding that the richest countries fulfil their responsibility to the poor. That is not party politics, but a statement of fact in a world where people ask every day, "Does politics make a difference? Are politicians all the same?" Well, this is one area where we have not been all the same: we would not be leading the world in international development if we had not had a Labour Government in power for 11 years and a Labour Prime Minister who has this matter at the heart of his moral compass.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that there are no circumstances in which we give aid with no strings attached; there are minimum standards that every Member of this House is fully aware of and signs up to, so he should not have used the term "no strings attached". Even a junior Opposition Member would never have used such a misleading term in an interview with a national newspaper.
	I now turn to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). I pay tribute to him for the leadership he displayed on the issue long before the mainstream majority believed that it should be a priority for the Government. I echo his point that we must maintain our commitment despite the global economic turmoil, as our Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the DRC. Of course it is right that every Government in that situation uses their power and influence to do the right thing and to try to get an immediate cessation of violence. I must correct some of the misleading impressions given in the House today. The UN Security Council has not yet agreed to the deployment of an additional 3,000 troops. It is still actively considering the offer. We believe that the priority is redeploying the 17,000 troops. We are very sympathetic to making more financial assistance available, if that is required to enable more troops to be deployed, but my information is that the UN Security Council, having met on Tuesday, has not made a final decision. I also point out that this country has not expressed a view as regards the European Union. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the issue, but there has been no request for additional troops from a European Union member state.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) talked about humanitarian aid. I assure him that progress is being made on that. Food deliveries continue to arrive in Goma daily. There are 20 trucks a day from Uganda, Tanzania or Rwanda. Aid agencies continue to contain cholera outbreaks across a number of towns. Emergency non-food items supplied by DFID to UNICEF will be packaged to get to those with the greatest need, and two of our humanitarian advisers have now arrived on the ground to enhance the humanitarian support available. On a daily basis, we are getting the necessary humanitarian aid to those countries.
	We have closely considered the issues to do with CDC, and we believe that it is abiding by the highest possible standards, as is expected, in its approach to taxation. I also say to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk that the recent report in  The Observer on our position on international agreements was inaccurate. It is our policy to strengthen the Committee of Experts on International Co-operation in Tax Matters, although we are not convinced that it should become an intergovernmental body. We want to strengthen it, but we are not convinced, as regards its future status.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the International Development Committee, made a measured contribution. He said it was very important that we did not give a false impression that budget support was not the right direction to take, particularly as we want the United States to support that direction of travel. He was right to say that it is vital that we improve co-ordination for donors. He was also right to say that the issue is not just accountability to donor countries; we have a responsibility to make sure that Governments in the countries that receive our aid are far more accountable to their local population. Better information is an important part of that.
	The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) said that we needed to remake the case to our constituents for the importance of aid, both because it is the right thing to do, from a social justice point of view, and because it is in our national interest. I agree entirely with that. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) felt that I was laughing at his contribution; the only point in it when I laughed was when he said that socialists were responsible for the current global economic turmoil. It is socialists, apparently, who controlled Barings bank and other financial institutions around the world, and who occupy the White House. I note that he opposed supporting a DFID aid programme to India, whereas the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, who spoke before him, said that he fully supported the need to continue aid to India—a case of Back Benchers in slight disarray.
	May I assure the hon. Member for Cotswold—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed without Question put.

Edward Vaizey: For almost 20 years, my constituents have been living with the possibility of a large reservoir being built on open land near their homes. This is not just any reservoir. Thames Water's proposals are for a reservoir of some eight square miles, taking 10 years to build and filled with 150,000 million litres of water. It would cost some £1 billion. It would be situated just south of Abingdon, between the villages of East Hanney and Steventon, but it would affect many more communities in my constituency.
	The reservoir is proposed on the basis that it will provide additional water for London, Swindon and Oxfordshire to cope both with London's increasing population and with the potential effects of climate change. It is an astonishing fact, especially in the light of the soaking we have received in the last few days, and the flooding that hit my constituency in July 2007, that the south-east is one of the most water-stressed areas not just in this country but in the world. As a constituency MP, I am mindful of my responsibility to represent my constituents' views and concerns as forcefully as possible, but I am mindful, too, of the national interest. Indeed, I suspect that my view on the reservoir represents that of the majority of my constituents. A few of them are opposed to a reservoir come what may, quite understandably. Some of them would welcome a reservoir as a leisure resource and a nature reserve, but the vast majority say to me, "If Thames Water can convince me that it is essential, I will reluctantly accept it."
	The point that I want to make is that Thames Water has not convinced local people. I wish to praise the efforts of the local community in holding Thames Water to account, particularly the tireless efforts of the local county councillor, Iain Brown, and the Group Against Reservoir Development—GARD—which has raised a lot of money to pay for expert opinion. I know that Minister cannot, here and now, give me a considered view of the merits or otherwise of a reservoir, but if my points are to have force, it is necessary briefly to set out the parameters of the debate. A few years ago, reservoir-sceptics like me could oppose the reservoir on the ground that Thames Water was not doing enough to use the water to which it already had access efficiently. That primarily centred on the need to fix leakages and to increase water metering. As anyone who has looked around London recently will have seen, Thames Water has at last undertaken a massive programme of repair. Given the financial and logistical restraints under which it operates, it would be hard, I concede, to ask it to do much more other than continue its work programme on leakage reduction. In 2006-07, leakage accounted for some 672 million litres a day being lost—roughly equivalent to twice the amount of water that one would get from a reservoir. After work to some 6,500 km of water mains, Thames Water will reduce that figure to just over 400 million litres a day—an enormous figure, but one which is deemed justifiable in economic terms. In addition, I welcome moves by both Thames Water and the Government to introduce compulsory metering. We pay for all other utilities in that way, so it seems absurd that water is not metered as a matter of course. Metering will ensure that we use this precious resource more carefully, and I am pleased to learn that compulsory metering will start in 2010 and eventually cover more than three quarters of London households and almost 90 per cent. of Thames Valley households, although I should point out that the Environment Agency still feels that Thames Water could still do more on that matter.
	If water leakage and water metering have been, as it were, taken care of, is the case for the reservoir therefore proved? Not yet. There are still a number of outstanding issues. The first is a disagreement about the expected level of demand for water use. In the Government's water strategy for England, published in February 2008, they suggested that household per capita consumption could be reduced to 130 litres per person per day by 2030. By contrast, Thames Water forecasts a significant increase in per capita consumption, up to 165 litres per person per day by 2030. The difference in the Government's estimates, and those of Thames Water, based on a population forecast of about 9.25 million people, is 340 million litres per day—surprisingly, almost the same amount of water that a reservoir would provide.
	So my first question to the Minister is, who is right? Is the Government's prediction right or is Thames Water's prediction right, because quite a lot hangs on those figures? Even if one were to accept Thames Water's predictions and say that, therefore, we needed to access more water, one would still have to ask whether a reservoir was the right way to go about it. Is there an alternative to a reservoir scheme? Many other schemes have been suggested, some fanciful, some less so. A detailed breakdown of some of the other schemes is contained in the report that GARD commissioned from a water expert, Chris Binnie, who cites a number of other, different sources of water. For example, both GARD and the local district council have suggested the possibility of a reservoir at Longdon Marsh to assist transfer from the River Severn, aquifer storage and recovery and the revision of the lower Thames operating agreement.
	However, there is one option to which I am particularly attracted: the rather euphemistically titled, effluent reuse. Some 2 billion litres of treated waste water are discharged into the sea every day, and some of it could be treated to a standard whereby it was perfectly acceptable for drinking. In a submission to the draft water resources management plan, the Environment Agency, which also takes Thames Water to task on the issue of water use forecasts, states clearly that Thames Water
	"has not fully explored the role of demand management and alternative supply options, such as effluent reuse."
	The agency continues:
	"We are disappointed the company continues to discount effluent reuse options and believe there may be opportunities for using effluent reuse to contribute a significant amount of water."
	I should be interested in the Minister's—indeed, the Government's—views on effluent reuse generally, if not specifically as an alternative to the reservoir. I am particularly interested in the light of the new technology that is available, and the kind of technology that, I understand, is operated in Essex at Langford. By using the Langford process in London, Thames Water could, I am told, potentially supply six times as much water from effluent reuse as from a reservoir.
	These are important issues, and, as a Member of this House, I am lucky enough to be able to debate them here. That brings me to the fundamental reason why I asked for tonight's Adjournment debate. My constituents do not share my luck. The combination of the draft water resources management plan and the new infrastructure planning commission means that it is highly likely that there will be no public inquiry into whether the reservoir should be built. The draft water resources management plan and the three-month extension of the deadline for presenting all WRMPs to DEFRA will, by sleight of hand, allow the case for the reservoir to be accepted through the back door. The newly created planning commission is likely to nod through the proposed site. I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider the need for a proper public inquiry, not just into the possible site of a reservoir, but into whether it is necessary at all. From my correspondence with the Minister's predecessor, it seems clear that the Government intend to railroad the proposal through via the WRMP and then the national policy statement. My constituents' voices will not be heard. Equally, the arguments will not be properly tested and cross-examined, a process that could benefit all parties involved.
	While I am here and on my feet, I should like to raise two ancillary matters—general points that the Minister might like to consider. First, the only organisation apart from Thames Water directly involved in this debate on the reservoir is the Vale of White Horse district council, which is a statutory consultee on the ground of being the local planning authority. I congratulate its officers, and in particular its recently departed chief executive Terry Stock, on an excellent response to the draft WRMP. Its officers have asked me, however, how such a small district council could gather the resources necessary to make a proper case on behalf of the local population. Surely in these circumstances, local councils should be able to apply for specific funds to enable them to put their cases properly. I am not talking about a large amount—perhaps £100,000 or £200,000, so that it could have a dedicated team and access expert advice. Such a sum is small, but it would be very significant for that small district council charged, in effect, with being the planning authority.
	I also seek assurances from the Minister that, should the reservoir go ahead, local residents and businesses will be properly compensated. A number of homes will have to be demolished, as will the site of the largest milking-goat herd in the United Kingdom. I seek assurances that people will be compensated at proper, negotiated, commercial and market rates that will enable the businesses to be re-established locally and the livelihoods of those displaced by any reservoir to be protected. If the reservoir goes ahead, I also hope that the Government and Thames Water will give adequate compensation to those whose lives will be seriously inconvenienced for up to 10 years.

Jane Kennedy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on securing a debate about this important issue. Despite the rain that we experienced in the summer, the drought that lasted from 2004 to 2006 is still fresh in our memories, as is the knowledge that a third dry winter after 2006 could have caused serious problems in some areas of the south-east. How we manage this precious resource to ensure a sustainable supply is important, and I am grateful for the opportunity to show what the Government are doing about the matter.
	The hon. Gentleman has spoken passionately and made his case robustly. He questioned the rigour of the appraisal process. I am somewhat more constrained than I like to be in Adjournment debates because of the process that will be carried forward. I should take a moment to explain what that will be. It is for each water company to justify any proposals for reservoirs or other new water supply resources. That must be on grounds of need, taking account of economic and environmental considerations.
	A fundamental element of that process is that the plans are subject to public consultation, and that was at the heart of the case for making the plans statutory. The water companies produced their draft plans earlier this year and consulted on them over the summer. That consultation period is now closed, and the companies are preparing their responses to the comments that they received about their plans. Those responses will then be published; they will show the consideration given to the comments received and whether any changes have been made to the plans.
	In the case of Thames Water, more than 300 stakeholders and other interested parties responded to the public consultation with views on the draft plan. Thames Water is now preparing its statement of response to the representations that it received and has until next February in which to publish its response. At that point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will determine whether to call for an inquiry or a hearing on the plans or to issue directions on changes to be made to the draft plans before publication. In deciding whether to hold a hearing or an inquiry on a water company's plan, he will consider whether they have complied with the legislation on process and content, including robust appraisal of the options to determine the proposed way forward.
	I will therefore speak in general terms and will be unable to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, although in other circumstances I prefer in debates of this nature to respond as closely as I can. I hope that he will understand the constraints under which I am working.
	We face a serious challenge when it comes to water management. Our population is growing and using more water as a result of our changing lifestyles, and we have a changing pattern of land use. That is putting more demand pressure on the water available, especially in areas where the supply of water is under stress; the hon. Gentleman says that his constituency is located in precisely such an area. Climate change, which will lead to hotter, drier summers—although I cannot remember many of those recently—and milder winters with more intense and sporadic rain will worsen the situation.
	Protecting our water resources is therefore essential. In 1997, the Government set up the UK climate impacts programme to encourage private and public sector organisations to assess their vulnerability to climate change so that they can plan their own adaptation strategies. Their research is invaluable in helping us to understand and adapt to these pressures. New forecasts on the impacts of climate change are expected next year. Our new water strategy, "Future Water", sets out the Government's plans for water in the future and the practical steps that will be taken to ensure a sustainable supply of water for people and businesses. I will return to "Future Water" in a moment when I deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about consumption at 130 litres per person. The steps include measures to reduce the demand for water, as well as to improve the supply—for example, through the abstraction licensing regime or, where the case is well made, by agreeing the need for new infrastructure. The overarching message of the new strategy is the need for everyone to value water and to take responsibility for protecting this unique resource.
	The Environment Agency plays a vital role in that protection. It is the statutory body with a duty to manage water resources in England and Wales, and its aim is to ensure that the management and future development of our water resources is carried out in a sustainable manner. It achieves that by regulating such activities as the abstraction of water through a licensing system, and it has also provided guidance to the water companies on drafting their water resources management plans.
	Ofwat is the independent economic regulator for the water industry, and it sets water price limits. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in August, as part of the 2009 review of water prices, water companies submitted to Ofwat their draft business plans for the period 2010-2015. Those plans set out each company's initial view of what it needs to do to maintain its assets, improve services to customers and deal with its impact on the environment. As part of this review process, DEFRA has submitted to Ofwat key documents that cover how it might contribute to wider social and environmental matters. Additionally, we will look to the Environment Agency to ensure that important environmental objectives can be achieved through the plans.
	Water companies themselves have statutory duties to maintain adequate supplies of wholesome water. Central to the long-term planning for water supply are the water companies' 25-year resource management plans. Those became a statutory requirement for the first time in 2007 and describe how each company aims to secure a sustainable demand-supply balance over the next 25 years. In their plans, water companies should look at the full range of options for reducing water demand, and where those are insufficient or unjustified in cost terms, they should proceed with developing sustainable new supply-side measures, which is why we are debating such proposals this afternoon.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the option of effluent re-use and asked what the Government's view was on such technology. We accept that it is one of many options that water companies may consider to achieve a demand-supply balance as part of their water resources management plans. It is for Thames Water to consider the options, and to undertake a robust options appraisal. It must justify its preferred options as the most cost-effective way forward. I understand that Thames Water has received representations on how that is addressed in its draft plan, but it is for the company to respond to those representations.
	The demand-side management options that water companies have to consider include leakage management—the hon. Gentleman raised that point. Controlling leakage is a vital component in the management of supply and demand for water. Since 1994, Thames Water has reduced leakage by a third, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that. It has achieved that progress in part through its commitment to replace more than 1,500 km of mains by 2010, and the programme will continue with increased mains replacement up to 2020. It has also achieved the leakage targets set by Ofwat in each of the past two years. Those targets are set to reduce the leakage of each water company to the economic level of leakage below which it would cost more to address the leak than to produce water from an alternative source. Thames Water is on track to reduce leakage to that economic level by 2009-10.
	The water saving group, of which I will be the chair, has made significant progress in the development of a programme of measures to promote water efficiency in households. That includes a project led by Waterwise, working with water companies, to update the evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of water efficiency measures. We have amended regulations to allow water companies in areas of serious water stress, including Thames Water, to consider compulsory metering as part of their water resources management plans. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on that. Ofwat has also consulted on proposals for water efficiency targets for water companies and an independent review of charging will look at options for metering water supplies.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the figure of 130 litres per person per day. That is an aspiration within "Future Water", not a target that must be met. It represents our view of what could be achievable by 2030, through cost-effective measures, if all stakeholders—water companies, manufacturers, retailers, plumbers, consumers and others—acted together in a concerted way to manage demand. Water resources management plans contain a water company's view of future per capita demand based on its own assumptions and modelling.
	I am unable to comment, while the statutory process is ongoing, on the contents or merits of Thames Water's plans, although the hon. Gentleman is obviously free to do so, as he has done. Water companies need to consider all these options to ensure that the most cost-effective option is chosen, so that customers' bills are not higher than they need to be. In the cases where demand management by itself does not achieve a sustainable supply-demand balance, or is not cost-effective, new or enhanced supply needs to be considered.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that while those plans are following the statutory process, it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge any decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might make on the evidence presented. Should Thames Water's final water resources management plan include a proposal for a reservoir near Abingdon, the water company would nevertheless still need to obtain development consent. Under the terms of the Planning Bill that is making progress through Parliament, that scheme would be a nationally significant water infrastructure project, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, and as such, Thames Water would need to apply to the infrastructure planning commission for development consent. However, if Thames Water sought development approval before the Planning Bill proposals reached the statute book, it could apply to the Secretary of State for a compulsory works order under section 167 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or to the local planning authority for planning permission. Again, I will not comment on the merits of any application or prejudge the outcome, because that might fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in making decisions about any proposals that come before him.
	As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I would normally like to respond in greater detail to some of the questions that he rightly asked on behalf of his constituents. I know that he will continue to raise their concerns as the process develops. I undertake to draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty- five minutes past Six o'clock.